Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Money) Bill,—(Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London County Council (Money) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Pensions Funds (Cardiff) Provisional Order Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

British and Continental Bank Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Fylde Water Board Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating, to Birkenhead, Blackburn, Godalming, Hyde, and the District of the Heywood and Middleton Water Board," presented by Major ASTOR; supported by Dr. Addison, read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR SERVICE.

TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any changes have been made in the conditions of admission of candidates to the Consular Service since 1914; and, if so, what?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): The usual Civil Service examination for the Con-
sular Service was suspended during the War, but it will be re-established as soon as circumstances permit. In the meanwhile a Committee of Selection has been set up, by whom candidates for the Consular Service are interviewed after a preliminary interview at the Civil Service Commission. The Committee of Selection recommends suitable candidates to the Secretary of State for appointment in the Service.

Sir S. HOARE: Are there any written conditions in accordance with which these interviews and selections take place, and, if so, would my hon. Friend send me a copy?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Candidates of all classes have to fill in certain particulars on a form which they send in, but I do not think there are any rules under which the interview takes place.

Sir S. HOARE: Could anyone apply or is a selection made? Is it open to anyone to be selected?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Provided that the rules as to his nationality are right in the first instance, anybody can apply as a candidate. He then sends in a form, and he is seen by one of the Civil Service Commissioners, and if he passes that preliminary test then he comes before the Selection Committee.

Sir S. HOARE: 3.
asked how many temporary appointments have been made to the Consular Service since August, 1914; whether it is intended to make any of these temporary appointments; and, if so, which?

The following are the numbers of the temporary Consular appointments made during the War:

August to December, 1914
None


1915
6


1916
38


1917
91


1918 and 1919
38



173

These appointments have been made for two reasons: (1) To create temporary salaried Consular posts as a war measure at places where before the War an unsalaried officer was posted; (2) to strengthen the staff at Consular posts where, as a result of the War, a large increase of work necessitated a corresponding increase of staff.

All temporary officers have been given the opportunity of applying for permanent employment in the Consular Service on the recommendation of their superintending officers. The question of retaining, as salaried posts, posts created as a war measure has been considered in connection with the reorganisation scheme for the Consular Service.

Sir S. HOARE: Are all these appointments made under the same conditions as those which have just been described by the hon. Member, namely, after consultation with the Civil Service Commission?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think not, but perhaps my hon. Friend will put down that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — REID TARGETS.

Mr. ARCHDALE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any reward was offered to the inventor of the Reid targets beyond the payment of his experimental expenses?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am informed that in January, 1915, Mr. Reid was offered £250 in full discharge of all claims against His Majesty's Government and in full recognition of his services rendered in connection with target frames, and that the offer was accepted.

Mr. ARCHDALE: 7.
asked what were the number of Reid targets used by the War Department during the War; what was the contract price paid; and what was the average cost for targets and erections of some of the types previously used, respectively, i.e., Jeffrey and Carey or Hythe patterns?

Mr. FORSTER: Five thousand five hundred wooden target frames similar in pattern to the old Reid frame were used as an emergency measure on rifle ranges during the War; the contract price was £3 7s. 6d. per frame. This was a special contract for 1914 only, and could not be repeated now.
The War Department standard pattern "Hythe" iron target frame manufactured by the late Mr. Jefferies is still in use on permanent War Department ranges. The contract price was £6 17s. 6d. per frame complete, which has since been increased by 57½ per cent.
It is difficult to give the average cost for erection accurately, as a considerable
number were put up by military labour, but it would be about 25s. to 30s. per frame.

Mr. ARCHDALE: Did not the inventor's contractor offer to supply these targets with metal frames for £2 2s. each at the outbreak of war?

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR MEMORIALS.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of providing gunmetal or other suitable material derived from guns or other munitions captured from the enemy for the purposes of county or city war memorials; and, if so, whether he will make an announcement on the subject?

The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I am informed that all captured guns are likely to be required for disposal as trophies of war. Should any such guns or other stores be found not suitable for use as trophies, the possibility of utilising them for the purpose suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.

Major DAVID DAVIES: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the serious position of the farmers in the county of Montgomery with regard to agricultural labour; if he will state the number of men belonging to agricultural companies now working on the farms in that county; how many are to be recalled to military service immediately; and how many are to remain at their work in the county?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the number of men in agricultural companies in Montgomeryshire now working on farms is 140. Twenty per cent. of these will be allowed to remain at their work if required, as I announced yesterday to the Members' Agricultural Committee, and, in addition, any men whose application for demobilisation as pivotal men had been sanctioned by the Ministry of Labour before the 1st February last.

ARMY SERVICE CORPS (MECHANICAL TRANSPORT).

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether men who are being retained in the Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport) are being kept employed in overhauling and repairing motor lorries prior to their dismissal; whether many of these men have work awaiting them in the building trade; and whether it is in harmony with the demobilisation scheme that men who are eligible for demobilisation should be retained in the Army on work of this character?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The men of the Royal Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport) who are being retained are employed solely on the maintenance of such vehicles as are essential to meet the current needs of the Army. I regret I cannot accept the suggestion contained in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot trade union labour be obtained to do this work any longer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I gather that these men are required for the handling of these lorries on which the Army depends.

Mr. T. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this system is causing a great deal of discontent among civilian workers?

RELEASE OF PRE-1916 MEN.

Major LANE-FOX: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how it is that so many men of no possible pivotal value, and who joined the Colours considerably after January, 1916, have obtained release from the Army; whether he is aware of the discontent caused by this fact to the relatives of many men who joined up before 1916 and yet are not released, and for whom important work in this country is waiting, and whether he can take any action in the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Men who joined the Colours after 1st January, 1916, are not being released unless they are eligible under the regulations governing demobilisation, or were certified by the Ministry of Labour as pivotal men in industry and registered by the War Office prior to 1st February, 1919.

Major LANE-FOX: Is it not the fact that there are a large number of these men apparently of no pivotal value who have been released?

Sir F. HALL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman a week ago promise to give his personal attention to the case of the men who joined in 1914–15? What steps have been taken to release them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am doing my very utmost to relieve these men by sending out battalions and drafts to take their places.

Major LANE-FOX: But cannot any of them be demobilised at once by other methods?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Under the original demobilisation scheme a great many people slipped through, and that is the cause of the discontent in the Army to-day. But now we have reverted to a much simpler if rougher method which, to some extent, affords a remedy.

ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.

Sir J. D. REES: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether upon the signing of the peace terms one-man business men and others, whose circumstances call for early release, will be permitted to return without any avoidable delay to their businesses, homes, and families?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Regulations governing demobilisation have been so framed as to release those classes of men who, from the point of view of long service and commercial requirements, are most entitled to demobilisation. I regret that, at the present time, I can give no undertaking to widen the scope of such Regulations in respect of men who are not eligible for demobilisation under the said Regulations.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the instructions he has given are carried out. A feeling exists that these men are not being released?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope they will be carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CARS (WAR OFFICE).

Brigadier-General Sir HILL CHILD: 10.
asked what number of military motor cars are now being employed in London; and how many of these are allotted to persons who are neither War Office officials nor military officers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of military motor cars now employed in London is 119. The number allotted to persons other than War Office officials or military officers, namely, to the Cabinet, Allied Missions, etc., is twenty-six.

Sir HILL CHILD: Are these people who use the cars entitled to use them for purposes not connected with their official duties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. A question was put on this subject, I think, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think he gave a general answer that the whole matter was under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether, apart from the Minister responsible for the War Office any members of the Government are using these public cars?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I believe that the heads of several Departments are supplied with cars. That arose during the period of the War when communication was so very difficult. The Prime Minister gave a long answer, which I think my hon. and gallant Friend would do well to consult, that the whole matter is the subject of reconsideration at the present time with a view to seeing what steps should be taken to return to the normal.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Does the number given in the answer include the cars assigned to the Air Ministry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I do not think it does.

Captain TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a list of the privileged people who have these cars?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All these matters are accessible to hon. Members, and perhaps this question had better be put to the head of the Government.

Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give his reasons for taking that action?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not taken any action, and I find it difficult to expatiate on the reasons.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Has my right hon. Friend taken one of the cars himself?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 11 and 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many conscientious objectors are in guardrooms or barracks awaiting re-court-martial; and whether these men are to be re-court-martialled and sent back to prison in spite of his statement of 3rd April; (2) whether F. W. Treherne, No. 60618, 3rd Essex Regiment, was court-martialled for the third time as a conscientious objector on 3rd May, a month after the official statement that conscientious objectors who had served imprisonment would be discharged from the Army; whether this is the second time this man has been court-martialled since the Armistice; and whether he will now order his immediate discharge?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my statement of the 3rd April which related solely to release from prison of men who had completed a total of two years in the aggregate in this country. I would also refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my statement of the 1stMay, in reply to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The principles laid down in that reply have been applied to soldiers with their units awaiting disposal, and in consequence thirty-one such soldiers who have completed twenty-four months in the aggregate have been discharged and seventeen soldiers who have completed twenty months in the aggregate are at the present moment awaiting their discharges and will not be re-court-martialled. If the facts are as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, Private Treherne will be discharged from the Army.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the court-martial which only the other day sentenced a man to two years' penal servitude?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That may be quite true, but it may not be at all contrary to the policy which I have announced to the House. If a soldier had not completed twenty-four months in the aggregate, or twenty months, assuming that there had been a revision for good conduct, he would be liable to be re-court-martialled, and, if convicted of several offences, he would probably get a severe sentence. That does not mean that in the aggregate he would serve more than twenty-four months or twenty months subject to the revision for good conduct.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether members of Non-Combatant Corps who were granted non-combatant service on conscientious grounds are being still retained in the Army, notwithstanding that their service was stated to be for the duration of the War only; and whether he will state the objections to their being released on the same conditions as that applying to the other members of the Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Regulations at present in force qualifying men as eligible for demobolisation apply to the Non-Combatant Corps, and I am not aware that any men who are eligible for demobilisation are being retained unless their services are temporarily required.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICER CADET BATTALIONS.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if cadets belonging to the Artists' Rifles (Officers' Training Corps) were after the Armistice compulsorily transferred to the 5th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps, now stationed at Rugeley Camp, Staffs; whether the majority of the cadets had nearly completed their course of instruction; and why they should have received different treatment to officers' cadet battalions, which have been demobilised, and Colonial cadets of the officers' training corps, who were given commissions prior to demobilisation?

Major NEWMAN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether all Officers' Cadet Battalions have been demobilised; whether recruits who were selected to join the Artists' and other Officers' Training Corps, on the understanding that unless they were found incompetent or unsuitable they would be granted commissioned rank, are now compulsory and permanently transferred as privates to the 5th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps or other units; whether Colonial members of the Officers' Training Corps were posted to No. 11 Officers' Cadet Battalion and demobilised with commissions; and will he take steps to remove this anomaly?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will reply to these two questions at the same time. All officer cadets serving in Officer Cadet Battalions have been demobilised. Members of the
Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps were ordinary enlisted soldiers, and, as such, were liable for service in the Army unless they could be demobilised under the Regulations in force. The Colonial members were under an agreement as to repatriation under a scheme made with the various Governments. It was for this reason and for the better organisation of repatriation that these members were collected and placed at the Officer Cadet Battalion mentioned. I should point out that Officer Cadet Battalions were not the same as Officer Training Corps. The former were composed of those who had been selected from Officer Training Corps and other units, and were, in fact, a higher step in the organisation.

General COLVIN: Will any preference be given to these cadets in the granting of commissions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that question.

Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that these men joined these units on the understanding that they would get commissions if they proved competent?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I gather that the War came to an end before the process of their training was completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE CENTRE, WATFORD.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the establishment of a proposed maternity and child welfare centre at Watford is being seriously endangered by the refusal, or neglect, of the War Office to give up possession of the house and grounds known as Little Nascot, at Watford; and whether he will take steps to see that possession of this property is given up at an early date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The retention of the property known as "Little Nascot," Watford, has been recently under consideration, and arrangements are now in hand which, it is hoped, will enable the War Department's occupation of these premises to be terminated before the end of this month. The matter is being pushed forward with all possible speed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIERS'GRAVES (VISITS OF RELATIVES).

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is now possible that arrangements can be made or facilities afforded whereby relations of men who have fallen in France can be given an early opportunity of visiting their graves?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated yesterday, I am not yet in a positon to make any statement on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTARY RECRUITING.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many recruiting meetings, for the encouragement of voluntary recruiting, were held during the month of April; and what means, apart from such meetings, he is taking to encourage voluntary enlistments in His Majesty's Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No recruiting meetings were held during the month of April, as such a method of recruiting was not suitable to the existing circumstances, and would have served no useful purpose. Many and various efforts to encourage enlistment have, however, been made. With the hon. Gentleman's permission, I will circulate a statement in the Official Report, as it is rather too lengthy to read out.

The following is the statement referred to:

No recruiting meetings were held during the month of April, as such a method of recruiting was not suitable to the existing circumstances and would have served no useful purpose.

Many and various efforts to encourage the voluntary enlistment of men of the several classes required have, however, been made during the past few months, and conditions now render it possible and desirable to adopt further measures in this direction.

The conditions and advantages of service in the Army have already been extensively advertised—a wide choice of period of service has been given and generous bounties have been offered to induce men to re-enlist. Compulsory transfer of men now re-enlisting is to cease.

A considerable number of recruiting agents have been appointed throughout
the country, and the number is to be increased in the near future; moreover, the assistance of civil organisations has been asked for and freely given.

Regular units which are now forming for service abroad are taking active steps to promote recruiting in their districts, and opportunities are to be afforded to units on the Rhine to supply officers and non-commissioned officers as recruiting agents who can describe the conditions of service in that Army.

The foregoing indicates a few only of the measures already adopted, or to be adopted in the near future, to stimulate voluntary enlistments.

Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Could it not be widely proclaimed that volunteers are urgently required to replace men who have given two, three, and four years' service to their country and who cannot be demobilised until volunteers are forthcoming?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not at all exclude the possibility of the inauguration of a campaign similar to that which was started when the War Loan was floated, but up to the present we have relied upon the regular methods of recruiting.

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Would it not be an incentive to men to come forward?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Member is dealing with a rather different state of affairs from that which existed in the earlier stages of the War. People have had a great deal of military service, and there is a great desire to take advantage of the unemployment benefit and this great period of labour now that the War is over.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL LAND (BARBED WIRE ENTANGLEMENTS).

Major WHELER: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the delay by the War Office in removing the barbed wire entanglements and the filling-up of the trenches dug in valuable agricultural land, he will favourably consider the using of German prisoners of war for these purposes so that the land, which, owing to these obstacles, cannot now be cultivated, may be available for cultivation before the spring season has passed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Prisoners of war have been used in the removal of barbed wire entanglements and filling in of trenches since the end of March, 1919. There are now about 3,000 so employed. Prisoners of war labour for this purpose is being supplied by the War Office on the application of local military authorities, but it is only used with the concurrence of the Ministry of Labour, and only where local civilian labour is not available.

Major WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of delay in this matter, and that a great many orchards and valuable agricultural land cannot be got at by the farmers on account of this delay? Could the matter be expedited?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are difficulties in other respects. There are those who wish the German prisoners to be sent out of the country for fear they take the bread out of the mouths of our own people, and I am very short of labour for tidying up after the War as well as for ordinary military needs.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY COMMISSIONS.

Captain LOSEBY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, with a view to the encouragement of the personnel and the general improvement of the Army, he will consider the advisability of so amending the present system of granting commissions in the Army that half of the commissions yearly awarded or some considerable proportion are reserved for serving soldiers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in connection with the general question of the number of commissions to be granted to candidates from the ranks and of the system of instructing such candidates, which is at present engaging the attention of the Army Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE (DISTRIBUTING FORAGE COMMITTEES).

Mr. HURD: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the county distributing forage committees' operations for the War Department are to be brought to an end before the harvesting of the 1919 crop?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. It is not intended that the distributing forage committees shall have anything to do with the 1919 crop of hay.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONER-OF-WAR CAMPS (INTERPRETERS).

Mr. HURD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether interpreters at prisoner-of-war camps who are unfit for service in the field have been and are being required to perform duties in excess of those for which they were originally appointed; whether at many camps they take entire responsibility for finance, take their turn as orderly officer of the day, take command of the parades of German officers, perform the duties of adjutant, and act on occasions as officer commanding guard; whether interpreters, having been refused children's allowance, field allowance, ration and mess allowance, have now been informed that they are not eligible for the post-war gratuity; and what representations have been made by the War Office to the Treasury, and with what result?

Mr. FORSTER: An Army Council Instruction was issued yesterday granting a higher rate of pay to interpreters with two years' satisfactory service. Interpreters are eligible for the Army of Occupation bonus. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the Army Council Instruction.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE SERVANTS (WAR GRATUITY).

Major NEWMAN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, under paragraph 11 (f), Schedule of Warrant, Army Order 17, of 1919, Post Office servants serving in the ranks and conscientious objectors are the only two classes not entitled to receive war gratuity; and will he say why this exception has been made in the case of Civil servants in the Post Office serving as privates?

Colonel BURN: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War why Post Office servants who have served in the ranks during the War are debarred from receiving the full war gratuity?

Mr. FORSTER: I will reply at the same time to both these questions. I am afraid
I cannot add anything to the answer given on the 10th April to the hon. Member for Burnley.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH RUSSIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.

Sir F. HALL: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for the early publication of any important dispatches which have been received with respect to the work and position generally of the North Russian Expeditionary Force; what is the total number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who have been recommended by the commanding officers concerned for military decorations for their achievements in the campaign and the total number of decorations that have been actually given; and if he will take steps for particulars of the work of the force to be communicated in more detail to the Press so that the public may be aware of the importance attaching to the campaign and the hardships and dangers incurred by those participating in it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, the publication of dispatches will be made at the earliest moment compatible with the public interests. As regards the second part of the question, the total number of awards actually conferred on British personnel in North Russia to date, exclusive of recommendations under consideration at the present moment, is 88. This total covers both the Murmansk and Archangel forces. The number of officers and men who have been recommended by their commanding officers for decorations are not known. But the immediate powers of award held both by General Maynard and General Ironside are considerable, and there is no reason to fear that any deserving cases recommended go unrewarded. As regards the third part of the question, frequent and full communiqués are given to the newspapers and, in addition, verbal communications are made to Press representatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY AND NAVY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

GRATUITIES ON TRANSFER TO RESERVE.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner D. Griffiths, No. 82330,
102nd Company, Royal Garrison Artillery, now of 22, Lovers' Walk, Wednesbury, was transferred to the Reserve on 26th March; whether he received a gratuity of £4; whether he was entitled to a gratuity of about £17; and whether he will have inquiry made so that Griffiths may receive the correct amount?

Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the words "on the termination of his war service," contained in paragraph 14 in the Schedule of the Royal Warrant of 17th December, 1918, as to war gratuity, are to be construed as meaning the date when the soldier was disabled from further war service or the date of his discharge; whether a soldier who in October, 1914, held the paid acting rank of company quartermaster-sergeant, and lost an arm on active service in France and received the pension appropriate to that rank, is entitled under the Royal Warrant to receive the gratuity appropriate to that rank; and whether his gratuity is liable to be reduced to the gratuity of a sergeant because on his return to England after his disablement he reverted to his substantive rank of sergeant?

Mr. FORSTER: War service means service with the Colours during the War, not service in the field. The gratuity is assessed on the rank held on discharge.

MILITARY GUARD, DINAS MAWDDWY.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is now in a position to state the weekly sum, including separation and all other allowances, paid to the military guard employed on protection duty at the explosives stores, Dinas Mawddwy?

Mr. FORSTER: The information desired has not yet been received, but I will furnish it to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

VICTORIA CROSS (INCOME OF RECIPIENTS).

Colonel ASHLEY: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the very great increase in the cost of living since the Victoria Cross was first instituted, £10 a year for a Victoria Cross recipient in normal circumstances, or £50 a year for one who is quite unable to earn a livelihood in consequence of age
or infirmity, is inadequate; and, if not, whether he is prepared to consider an increase of 50 per cent. to those amounts?

Mr. FORSTER: The awards referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are honorary grants and have no relation to the cost of living, but the question shall be taken into consideration in the general revision of the terms and conditions of service of the future Army.

Colonel ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the old soldier who won the Victoria Cross before the War only got £50 to live on? He is not very handsomely rewarded by the State.

Mr. FORSTER: I am not sure I can accept that from my hon. Friend. He leaves out of account the disability pensions.

Colonel ASHLEY: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that special pensions are awarded to recipients of the Victoria Cross, if they be warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, or privates, but not if they be officers; and whether he will consider a modification of this Regulation so as to admit of the grant of a Victoria Cross pension at least to those Victoria Cross officers who received their commissions from the ranks for services in the War?

Mr. FORSTER: A Victoria Cross annuity awarded during service in the ranks continues to be drawn if the holder is subsequently commissioned. It is not proposed to extend such annuities to officers awarded the Victoria Cross, and it would be quite impracticable to make a distinction in this respect between different officers according to whether they had served in the ranks.

Colonel ASHLEY: Cannot some addition be made in respect of an officer whose financial position is obviously of a meagre character?

Mr. FORSTER: The question is whether or not the Victoria Cross was gained while the man was serving in the ranks or as a commissioned officer. If he gained it as a commissioned officer I think he must abide by the rules relating to all commissioned officers.

Colonel ASHLEY: Are not many of the now commissioned officers poor men?

Mr. FORSTER: We shall, I hope, deal with them in the revision of their pay.

OFFICERS' PENSIONS (SUGGESTED REVISION).

Major GLYN: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee as soon as possible to consider the question of the conditions and scales of pension at present awarded to serving officers of the Regular Army on their retirement; and whether the existing scales are inadequate in view of the increased cost of living?

Mr. FORSTER: These matters are already under consideration.

Colonel YATE: When will that consideration be completed?

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot name a definite date. My hon. and gallant Friend must realise it is an elaborate and complicated process.

TUBERCULOSIS CASES (TRAINING).

Major DAVID DAVIES: 65.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many discharged men suffering from tuberculosis are at present being trained in Wales; how many are awaiting training; and what provision has been made to meet the needs of those men awaiting training?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): The provision of facilities for the training of men discharged for tuberculosis, but sufficiently recovered to take part in industrial life, is now a matter for the Ministry of Labour. From the latest returns available, it appears that there are twenty-one men discharged for tuberculosis under ordinary industrial training in Wales, and between sixty and seventy awaiting training. Men awaiting training and not receiving wages can be given the usual training allowances for a period of four weeks or longer in special cases. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the general question of the residential treatment and training of tuberculosis discharged men is now being considered by an inter-Departmental Committee over which my hon. and gallant Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, is presiding.

THE KING'S FUND.

Sir F. HALL: 66.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the amount that has been collected on behalf of the King's Fund, including His Majesty's donation of £78,000;
how much has been distributed; and what has been the total expenses incurred in connection with the fund?

Sir J. CRAIG: The amount collected for the King's Fund is £1,041,374 13s. 6d. Other voluntary funds amount to £88,122 18s. 8d. The total amount distributed from these funds is £568,490 7s. 6d. The expenses incurred, including cost of propaganda, amount approximately to£25,000.

Sir F. HALL: Is this fund not administered both by the Ministry of Pensions and by the Civil Liabilities Department, and in these circumstances cannot one Department administer it and thereby save a large proportion of the expense otherwise incurred?

Sir J. CRAIG: No, Sir. The King's Fund is administered by a Committee of Trustees. The Ministry has very little to do with it.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the King's Fund now available at all for discharged and disabled men, or only for widows and dependants?

Sir J. CRAIG: Widows and dependants. The other was taken over by the Special Grants Department.

Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that the Civil Liabilities Committee administer any of the King's Fund?

Sir J. CRAIG: No; the King's Fund is distributed by the Trustees.

PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 67.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will give an increase of pension to men who were partially disabled by the loss of a limb, etc., in past wars, so that they may come under the terms of the present Royal Warrant?

Sir J. CRAIG: Men who have incurred specific disabilities, such as the loss of a limb, in a previous war, already have their pension raised to the level of the present War. The question of similarly increasing the pension of partially-disabled men suffering from disease or unspecified injuries is under consideration.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 69.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the widows of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who were
killed or died in wars prior to the Great War are only in receipt of the 13s. 9d. per week pensions given to private's widows; and whether he will consider an extension of the pensions warrant so as to bring all widows' pensions up to the scale appropriate for their husbands' rank as laid down for this War?

Sir J. CRAIG: I am aware of the fact stated. Although the widows referred to are not treated so generously as those whose husbands were killed in the present War, their pensions have been substantially increased, and they also get the benefit of the 20 per cent. war bonus. I will call the attention of the Select Committee to the facts.

TUBERCULAR EMIGRANTS.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 68.
asked the Pensions Minister if he can state under what Regulation the advance of pension to tubercular men wishing to emigrate is limited to three months' pension, in view of the fact that the War Office financial instructions admits of an advance to approved emigrants of six months' pension in the case of a permanent pensioner and nine months' of the unexpired portion of pension in the case of a temporary pensioner?

Sir J. CRAIG: As my right hon. Friend is advised, the period of an advance of pension is limited to three months by the terms of Section 1 of the Army Pensions Act, 1914. It is proposed to seek statutory powers to amend this provision so that advances may be made for longer periods in suitable cases.

NAVAL OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

Sir F. HALL: 78.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say what are the pensions at present granted to naval officers; when were they fixed; whether, owing to the increased cost of living, it is intended to increase them; and whether, in the event of such increase being made, it will be made retrospective to officers who have already retired from the Service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The scales of pensions of naval officers will be found on pages 2264 to 2280 of the Quarterly Navy List. They are lengthy and complicated. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend copies of the
pages in question. The scales were originally laid down in 1870, and form the basis of the present rates, though improvements have since been made in certain respects. The question, generally, has engaged the attention of the Officers' Pay Committee.

Sir F. HALL: Do the Government propose to make any increase in these pensions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee of the Board will meet to-morrow. I cannot anticipate any decisions they may arrive at.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Admiralty are going to bring forward any question with regard to the pre-war pensions that were fixed for these naval officers, and whether, in consequence of what is stated in my question, they will propose any increase?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I must ask for notice of that. I cannot give any undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRAMLINGTON AERODROME.

Sir FRANCIS BLAKE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the construction of the aerodrome at Cramlington, Northumberland, is still being proceeded with; what number of men are being employed in such construction; what rates of pay and travelling allowances are being paid them; and whether it is the policy of the military authorities to establish a permanent station at this place?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (General Seely): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but twenty-two men are at present employed in clearing up materials. The rates of pay are those fixed by the Tyne and Blyth Conciliation Board for Building Trades. It is not intended to establish a permanent station.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY MASSAGE SERVICE.

Colonel YATE: 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether full consideration has yet been given to the various matters raised in the petition from the members of the military massage service; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?

Mr. FORSTER: Several of the points raised in the petition have been dealt with in Army Council Instructions No. 215 of this year, of which I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy. The remaining points are under consideration, and it is hoped that a decision upon them will be arrived at very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — YORK WAR OFFICE (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has recently received certain communications from the civil subordinates of the War Office at York, or from any persons on their behalf, in reference to the conditions of employment of these men; and whether these communications are receiving attention, and how soon may a decision be expected?

Mr. FORSTER: The only recent communication of which I am aware refers to certain women. In that case I am issuing instructions for an advance in the bonus.

Oral Answers to Questions — CERTIFICATES OF NATURALISATION (REVOCATION).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918, the Home Secretary has, before revoking a certificate of naturalisation, to be satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted has done certain acts or things specified in the Act, or was not of good character at the date of the grant of the certificate; whether, in order that the Home Secretary may be so satisfied, it is essential that he should know the result of the inquiry held by the Committee mentioned in the Act and the grounds of their decision; and whether, when this Committee make their Report to the Home Secretary, they communicate to him not only their decision but the grounds of their decision and a note of the evidence on which that decision is founded?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The answer to all these questions is in the affirmative so far as regards cases under Section 1 of the Act of 1918, in
which some act of disloyalty is alleged; but in cases under Section 3 of that Act—that is, cases of enemy subjects naturalised during the War against whom no such act is alleged—the final decision rests with the Committee, and they answer "Yes" or "No" to the question whether the certificate of naturalisation should be revoked without giving their reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE TELEPHONES (CIVILIAN USE).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to afford assistance to farmers and others, telephone systems which have been erected by the military authorities during the War may remain in districts where they are required and be converted for civilian use?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The question whether wires erected by or for the naval or military authorities during the War will be useful for civilian purposes is being considered before such wires are recovered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (ASSISTANCE TO LEASEHOLDERS).

Mr. ROWLANDS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when legislation will be promoted to give relief to leaseholders who are being called upon to carry out repairs under their leases, but who are unable to do so on account of the shortage of materials and labour?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich on the 20th of March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERMS OF PEACE.

INTERNED GERMAN VESSELS.

Mr. GOULD: 48.
asked the Lord Privy Seal, if he will say whether, in view of the retention by the American Government of the German interned vessels for a consideration of £20,000,000, the vessels were valued before being taken over; and, if so, by whom?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend yesterday.

Mr. GOULD: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if the Government intend to distribute German captured tonnage among the Allies proportionately to their losses of tonnage due to enemy action?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make any statement at present on this subject.

Brigadier-General CROFT: When does the right hon. Gentleman think it likely he will be able to make the statement on a matter which is of tremendous importance to the Mercantile Marine?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it is very important. It appears, I believe, in the Summary, but there is to be some revision and the terms are not yet altogether settled.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICAN CHARTERED COMPANY.

Mr. ADAMSON: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in connection with the claim made by the British South African Chartered Company, in the event of this matter being seriously considered with a view to any payment, he will consider the advisability of taking as a first step the appointment of a Select Committee to make a thorough inquiry into the whole matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As at present advised, His Majesty's Government do not consider that an inquiry by a Select Committee would be a suitable method of procedure, but they are considering in what manner the nature and extent of any financial obligations arising out of the recent judgment of the Privy Council can best be ascertained. As I stated in reply to questions by the right hon. Member on the 16th of April, the Government will not commit themselves to any payment in respect of this claim without the sanction of the House of Commons.

PAYMENTS BY GERMANY.

Sir J. WALTON: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House whether any and, if so, what payments have been received up to date from the German Government, either for food supplies, cost of Army of Occupation, or reparation; and what further sums
it is estimated will be received during the current year under these heads towards the relief of the British taxpayers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Approximately, £6,000,000 has been received from the German Government for Food Supplies, and certain advances have been made towards the local expenditure of the Army of Occupation. I am unable at present to make any estimate of the amount likely to be received from indemnities in the current year, but the amount appropriated in aid of Army Votes for the charges of the Army of Occupation is £70,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR EXPENDITURE (INDIA AND DOMINIONS).

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say how much war expenditure has been incurred by each of the self-governing Dominions, the Indian Empire, and by the Crown Colonies?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): As regards the self-governing Dominions the following particulars are available: Total War Expenditure (partly estimated) up to 31st March, 1919 (in the case of Newfoundland up to 30th April, 1919):

(about £255,454,600)


Canada
$1,277,273,000


Commonwealth of Australia
£291,000,000


New Zealand
£75,750,000


Union of South Africa
£32,950,000


Newfoundland
$9,800,000



(about £1,880,000


The capitalised cost of pensions due to the War is given as follows:


Canada
$440,000,000



(about £88,000,000)


Commonwealth of Australia
£100,000,000


New Zealand
£12,000,000


Union of South Africa
£2,250,000


Newfoundland
$16,000,000



(about £3,200,000).

It would be impossible to set out the expenditure of each Colony and Protectorate separately within the limits of an answer,
but the total direct expenditure of the Colonies and Protectorates has been estimated at some £10,000,000, to which must be added contributions amounting to over £15,000,000 to the War expenditure of His Majesty's Government, and some £12,000,000, the ultimate incidence of which, as between this country and the Protectorates concerned, has not yet been determined.

As regards Indian expenditure I suggest that a further question should be put on the Paper, and addressed to the Secretary of State for India.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINES, SOUTH STAFFORD (FLOODING).

Mr. SITCH: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the possible closure of coal mines in the Tipton, Old Hill, and Kingswinford districts of South Staffordshire through flooding; whether he has ascertained the views of the persons concerned as to this danger; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in relation thereto?

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 61.
asked the Home Secretary if and by whom a committee of mining experts was recently appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the flooding of the mines in South Staffordshire; and whether it is proposed to issue a Report as to its findings thereon, and when?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. My attention has been directed to the possible closing of coal mines in certain districts of South Staffordshire through the flooding of the Tipton area, and the Controller of Coal Mines has the matter in hand. He recently appointed three mining engineers of high technical qualifications to visit the district and advise him as to the best course to pursue. He is now acting on the advice of these gentlemen and has appointed a highly qualified engineer to carry out arrangements with a view to securing the neighbouring areas of Oldbury, Old Hill, and Kingswinford districts of South Staffordshire from inundation. It is not proposed to issue as a Report the conclusions arrived at by the experts.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOANS TO ALLIES AND DOMINIONS.

Sir JOSEPH WALTON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the payments received up to date and from whom, either in the shape of interest or repayment of principal, in connection with the £1,700,000,000 of loans to our Allies and Dominions; what further payments are expected before the end of the current financial year; and whether these have been taken into consideration in framing the Estimates of the present Budget?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The total amounts received from the Dominions are approximately £27,000,000 and from the Allies, approximately, £12,000,000. These figures are exclusive of the adjustment under the special arrangements mentioned in the Budget speech whereby £80,600,000 was set off between the Imperial Government and the Dominion Government of Canada. I should add that the greater part of these sums are payments for interest by the Dominions. No regular payments are at present made by the Allies. The estimated amount of receipts for 1919–20 is approximately £8,500,000, the greater part of which arises from interest payments by Dominions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION.

LOSS ON TRAFFIC WORKING.

Sir J. WALTON: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, and to what extent, provision to meet the estimated loss of £100,000,000 in the current year in connection with working our railways under Government control has been included in the Budget now under consideration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Provision is made in my Budget Estimate and in the Civil Service Estimates Vote 18 for £60,000,000. This represents the best estimate which the Board of Trade are able to form of the net charge to be borne on the Votes this financial year.

Sir J. WALTON: Am I to understand that the estimate of £100,000,000 loss made by the Minister of Ways and Communications has therefore been found to be an over-estimate to the extent of £40,000,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been great difficulty in making an estimate of
the probable loss this year, but the figure of £60,000,000 is, I am advised by the Board of Trade, the best figure which they can give me.

Sir E. CARSON: Is it not true that the figure of £100,000,000 is a pure fiction, and that no facts or figures can be produced to sustain anything like it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my right hon. and learned Friend wants further information about the figure of £100,000,000, he will perhaps address a question to my right hon. Friend.

Sir E. CARSON: I have done so, and could get no answer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What my right hon. Friend cannot answer I cannot answer.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does the figure of £60,000,000 exclude the cost of carrying troops, Government transport, and merchantmen?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I think it does certainly.

Sir D.MACLEAN: For the convenience of the Transport Committee which is sitting to-day and every day, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would amplify the answer he gave this afternoon with regard to the estimate of the loss to the railways? Will he say whether that estimate is arrived at after debiting the various Government Departments with the cost of carriage for those Departments, and will he say when that system of debit began? Was it three months ago, or within the last six weeks?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer I made was in answer to a supplementary question. It is very easy to put those questions, but it is often rash of Ministers to answer them. But, having further investigated the matter—my statement was challenged immediately after it was made, and I therefore sought to ascertain the facts to see whether I was correct or not—I am informed that the £60,000,000 is, as I said, the net deficit after debiting the Government with the charges for services rendered during the year. That arrangement came into operation, I think, on 1st April this year, and I believe, though I am not absolutely certain on this point, that the charges of each Department are met out of the Votes of the Department. At any rate, the £60,000,000 estimate—if
the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will refer to it they will see—is outside the payment for Government services.

FARES (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).

Mr. CLOUGH: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refer to the Railway Executive the appeal of the commercial travellers of the country for the restoration of week-end facilities, even at the higher fares; and whether he is aware that, as matters now stand, commercial travellers, to see their families at the week-end, have often to pay fully 200 per cent. more than in pre-war days?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This matter has already been fully considered, but it has not been found practicable, in present circumstances, to resume the issue of any class of special week-end ticket.

Mr. CLOUGH: Am I to believe that it is the settled policy of the authorities to make commercial travellers pay 200 per cent. advance on pre-war rates, whilst ordinary passengers are only called upon to pay 50 per cent. increase? If so, how can that be justified?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware how the hon. Gentleman arrives at his figures of 200 per cent. If he will give me them in greater detail I shall be glad to submit them to the Railway Executive Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — BORROWINGS FROM UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

Sir J. WALTON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state to the House the conditions of repayment of the principal of the 1,000 millions borrowed from the Government of the United States of America, and the rate of interest payable on the same; and what provision has been made for these purposes in the estimate of expenditure for the current year included in the Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rate of interest at present payable to the American Government is 5 per cent. on advances amounting on 31st March last to rather over $4,000,000,000. Provision is made for this interest in the Debt Charge for the current year. No arrangements have at present been made as regards the date of repayment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENSERVANTS' TAX.

Commander BELLAIRS: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the exemption from the special tax on menservants in the case of all men who have been disabled from heavy work by service in the fighting forces?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. The Licence Duty for a male servant is only 15s. and is payable not by the servant, but by the employer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS OFFICIALS (INCOME TAX).

Colonel ASHLEY: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether superintendents of the Board of Trade holding honorary commissions as paymasters in the Royal Naval Reserve are assessed for Income Tax purposes at Service rates; and, if so, why the same concession cannot be extended to Customs officials who are also superintendents of the Board of Trade and holding similar commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Trade officials to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers were from the outbreak of War either entirely or mainly occupied in duties of a naval character and were accordingly entitled to the Service rates of Income Tax. In the case of the Customs officials in question their Royal Naval Reserve duties, where they had any, formed a comparatively small portion of their Departmental duties as a whole.

Colonel ASHLEY: If I can show my right hon. Friend that they really did a great deal of work, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider any information my hon. and gallant Friend can put before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Mr. SHORT: 60.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Committee at present inquiring into the pay and conditions of service of the police is competent under its terms of reference to consider and report upon the present unrest existing amongst the Metropolitan police; if so, whether it is proposed that the Committee should take this action; and whether, in
the event of the Committee not being competent to do so, he will appoint a special Committee to inquire into the whole matter with a view to coming to some satisfactory settlement of the present trouble?

Mr. SHORTT: The Committee in question is appointed to consider and report whether any and what changes should be made in the method of recruiting for, the conditions of service of, and the rates of pay, pensions, and allowances of the police forces of England, Wales, and Scotland. So far as the present unrest among the police has any bearing on these questions, it comes within the scope of the Committee's inquiry and will be considered by them. I do not think it is necessary or desirable to appoint another Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL (DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the statement of the Government that the Order in Council to be made under the Aliens Restriction Bill was in draft and their undertaking that it would be placed in the hands of Members as soon as possible, he will now place copies of such draft Order in Council in the Library or the Vote Office, where they will be accessible to Members?

Mr. SHORTT: I shall be glad to comply with the hon. Baronet's suggestion as soon as the draft Order is ready. There are, however, certain points I wish to consider further before issuing the draft.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree not to bring the Bill before the Committee upstairs until, say, a week after that draft Order is laid?

Mr. SHORTT: Really, I cannot agree to that.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that it is impossible to discuss the Bill upstairs until we have this draft Order?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXETER CITY ASYLUM.

Mr. WIGNALL: 63.
asked the Home Secretary if forty-three members of the Exeter City Asylum are on strike owing
to the dismissal of an old servant of twenty-eight years' service, who is a trade union official, on a charge arising from a dispute between this servant, in the exercise of his duties as a trade union official, and the medical superintendent of the asylum; whether a public meeting of Exeter citizens held on Sunday, 4th May, after hearing the strikers' statement of their case, unanimously declared its belief that the dismissal of P. Glanville, the union official, was unjustifiable; and that the Exeter Trades Council has recommended its affiliated unions to refuse to handle goods for the asylum until Glanville is reinstated; and what action he proposes to take to secure an amicable settlement of this dispute?

Mr. SHORTT: I am informed that the cause of this strike is the dismissal by the Visiting Committee responsible for the management of the asylum of a member of the staff for insubordinate conduct when fault was found with his work, and that at the time of the dismissal neither the Visiting Committee nor the medical superintendent were aware that the man in question was an official of the trade union. The facts have been reported to the Ministry of Labour, which is investigating the dispute.

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUS FARES.

Mr. HIGHAM: 64.
asked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to state the result of his investigations into the increased omnibus fares; and whether he has power to order their reduction?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. The investigation is now proceeding, and must necessarily occupy a little time. I have no power to order a reduction of the fares.

Mr. HIGHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how the Government propose to reduce the omnibus fares and tram fares if they are found to be excessive?

Mr. SHORTT: That will have to be considered.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman put an end to the advertisements now appearing in all the papers saying there are no increased fares?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no power.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING LOSSES (ENEMY ACTION).

Mr. GOULD: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he can state the number and gross tonnage of passenger liners and the number and deadweight tonnage of cargo vessels lost through enemy action by Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): As the full reply contains a large number of figures, I am circulating in the Official Report a statement showing the number and gross tonnage of Allied merchant vessels (steam and motor) lost through enemy action, and the number and gross tonnage of British passenger vessels so lost.
Information is not available as to the deadweight tonnage of the vessels or as to the proportion of passenger tonnage other than British.

The following in the statement referred to:

Merchant vessels (steam and motor) lost through enemy action have been as follows:—

No.
Gross tonnage.


Great Britain
2,197
7,638,020


France
238
696,845


Italy
230
742,365


Japan
29
120,176


United States
80
341,512

The losses of British merchant vessels include 236 vessels, totalling 1,387,359 gross tons, which held Board of Trade passenger certificates prior to or at the time when lost. In addition to these figures twenty vessels, totalling 95,292 gross tons, which at one time held Board of Trade passenger certificates, were lost through enemy action whilst on Admiralty service as commissioned vessels.

It is not possible to state the deadweight tonnage lost or to distinguish passenger from cargo vessels except in the case of British vessels.

Sir C. HENRY: Could the hon. Gentleman in that statement include to-day's value, at to-day's rates, of that tonnage that has been lost?

Colonel WILSON: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will endeavour to have a statement circulated in the Official Report dealing with that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASH-TUBS (NEW STEVENSTON, LANARK).

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 71.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the houses erected, by arrangement with the Ministry of Munitions, at Coronation Road, New Stevenston, in the Middle Ward of Lanark, no wash-tub conveniences have been provided; whether he is aware that these houses have been inspected by the medical officer of health for the Middle Ward of Lanark and that he has reported that they are without proper wash-house accommodation and in that respect are unfit for human habitation; whether he is aware that the district commitee of the Middle Ward of Lanark has been in communication with the Local Government Board for Scotland on the question and have been informed that the Ministry of Munitions refuses to sanction the erection of wash-tubs; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what action in the circumstances?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject on Friday last to my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Mr. R. M'Laren).

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL POLLING STATIONS (SCOTLAND).

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 72.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the number of polling stations in Parliamentary elections in rural constituencies; whether he will give directions that in all elections there shall be at least one polling station in each parish; and whether he will institute an inquiry as to the best means of giving further facilities for recording votes in rural areas either by travelling polling booths or otherwise?

Mr. MUNRO: I have been asked to answer this question by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, who has, under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, certain duties in regard to this matter. My right hon. Friend's attention has not been called to the inadequacy of polling stations in rural constituencies generally. A few representations with regard to the polling facilities in particular constituencies have been made to him under the Representation of the People
Act, 1918, and have been duly considered. The Lord Advocate has no power to give the directions suggested in the second part of the question. He can only consider the polling facilities in any particular constituency on are presentation by a local authority or by not less than thirty electors. The Lord Advocate is not satisfied that the inquiry suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend is necessary, but, if he desires to submit any new scheme for the recording of votes at elections, it will be duly considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Sir H. COWAN: 73.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Interim Forestry Authority is, from its office in London, appointing a large staff of officials to control afforestation in Scotland and elsewhere; and, if so, whether this course is consistent with the assurance on which the Vote was passed in November last?

Mr. MUNRO: I am informed by the chairman of the Interim Forestry Authority that one new appointment has been made in Scotland, in consultation with the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and that nothing has been done that would conflict with any assurances given by the Government.

Sir H. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a considerable number of other appointments have not been promised but not definitely made?

Mr. MUNRO: Not so far as I am aware.

Mr. PERCY: 74.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can state what is the acreage of timber-land in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, that has been cleared of timber during the War, the amount thereof that it is proposed forthwith to replant, the acreage of new land in each country it is at present proposed to appropriate for afforestation, the estimated number of workers that will probably be employed at an early date in such work, and the estimated cost?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Timber Supply Department of the Board of Trade are not in a position to give the figures asked for for England and Wales. They estimate that in Scotland 113,000 acres have been
felled, or are in course of felling, and 30,000 acres in Ireland. Surveys in Scotland have also shown that 72,000 acres felled before the War have not been replanted. The Interim Forest Authority have prepared schemes for assisting the replanting of felled areas under correct sylvicultural conditions, and for obtaining areas for afforestation, but they will be unable to proceed with them beyond the initial stages until the legislation, which is to be placed before Parliament this Session, has been passed.

Major LANE-FOX: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be a sufficient supply of seedlings for all the planting that will be required?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Would my hon. and gallant Friend give notice of that?

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD.

Captain BRACKENBURY: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will take steps to see that the decisions of the Central Agricultural Wages Board from time to time in respect of objections lodged on the question of rates of agricultural wages are immediately communicated to Members of Parliament desiring such information?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The decisions of the Agricultural Wages Board on objections to proposals made by them are embodied in Orders which are immediately published. If any hon. Member desires to have copies of Orders sent to him, he can obtain them by communicating with the Secretary of the Agricultural Wages Board at 80, Pall Mall, S.W.1.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

UNTENANTED FARMS.

Lieutenant-Colonel ROYDS: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that three farms on the Norton Disney Estate, Lincolnshire, namely, Blundy's Farm, the Brill Farm, and Hill Holt Farm, have, since Lady Day, been tenantless and not cultivated; that cultivation orders made by the Kesteven Agricultural Executive Committee have been issued; that such Committee are unable to take possession
of the farms for want of horses, tractors, and labour; and whether he will say what steps, under these circumstances, should be taken, and by whom, in the interest of food production?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are aware of the circumstances of this case. The land has been sold several times over in recent months, and the Kesteven Agricultural Executive Committee have now served cultivation orders on the latest purchasers. If the owners do not make satisfactory arrangements for the cultivation of the land, the Board will consider the question of taking possession themselves and letting the farms to suitable tenants.

Lieutenant-Colonel ROYDS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all this trouble arises in connection with the purchase of these farms by land speculators?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes; I believe that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION.

Major WHELER: 77.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state when he will be in a position to announce the terms of reference under which the Agricultural Commission is to act?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend will be announced at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 79.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the post-war shortage of engine-room artificers, the Admiralty are prepared to offer better pay, status, and conditions of service to those now serving and to the class generally; and whether he considers such a step as the best means of successfully recruiting men for the engineering department?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This is one of the questions dealt with by the Jerram Committee, and the improvements made have been promulgated.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 80.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the reconstruc-
tion proposals of the Admiralty includes a proposal to largely supplant the engine-room artificer class by the enlargement of the stoker-mechanician scheme; and whether such a proposal would pre-judically affect the Admiralty's present attempts to recruit engineers of the engine-room artificer class for the Navy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

BOY ARTIFICERS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 81.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the wooden ships at present used for training boy artificers at Portsmouth and Devonport are in a very unsatisfactory and unhealthy condition; whether the Admiralty are considering the advisability of setting up shore establishments for training purposes; and whether Keyham College at Devonport is immediately available and very suitable as a training establishment for boy artificers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The use of hulks for this purpose has many disadvantages, and proposals to transfer the establishments to the shore are being considered. Keyham College is not available for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABLES TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.

Mr. DAWES: 82.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can say when commercial firms desiring to communicate by cable with their correspondents in neutral countries will be allowed to use the telegraphic addresses of such correspondents?

Major-General SEELY: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for War has asked me to reply in his unavoidable absence. As I have stated in answer to previous questions of a similar nature, His Majesty's Government are very desirous of abolishing these and similar restrictions as soon as possible, but I am afraid it is impossible to fix a date, as it must depend on the issue of the Peace negotiations.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What precise advantage is gained by retaining this restriction on commerce?

Major-General SEELY: I am responding for another right hon. Gentleman, who
is himself responding for yet another, so I think I must have notice of such a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING CABLES.

Mr. GOULD: 83.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the serious delay caused in the dispatch of British-owned steamers in foreign ports through the excessive delay in transmitting sailing orders sent by the managers viâ the established cable routes; if he is aware of the demand for tonnage in British home ports; and whether he can make arrangements for prompt dispatch of cables having reference to ships?

Mr. PIKE PEASE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett). I fear it is impracticable to give special facilities to messages relating to ships.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY.

Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Royal Agricultural Society will hold their first show since the War at Cardiff on 24th to 28th June, inclusive; if he is aware that considerable anxiety exists owing to the unsatisfactory replies from the Railway Executive as to the facilities that will be provided by the railway companies; and, in view of the great importance of the encouragement of agriculture in this country, will he take such steps as will ensure adequate facilities for passenger traffic?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have communicated with the Railway Executive Committee on this matter, and they assure me that the railway companies have said that they will do everything they possibly can to facilitate the transit of visitors and goods to and from the agricultural show.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOX-BOARDS IMPORTATION.

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Trade under what powers the importation of box-boards is being prohibited by the Department of Import Restrictions, in view of the fact that all the timber control orders have now been revoked; whether this action is to be reconciled with recent Gov-
ernment statements that industry is to be freed from official control; whether he is aware that box-boards, although semi-manufactured, really constitute an important raw material in many large home and export industries; and whether he is aware that, owing to the impossibility of procuring box-boards of the necessary quality and in adequate quantities at reasonable prices from sawmills in this country, a serious obstacle is being placed in the way of numerous industries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The import of box-boards is prohibited under the heading of wood manufactures by the Prohibition, of Import (Consolidation and Amendment) Proclamation, 1917, and the question as to how far the restriction should be relaxed will shortly come before the Imports Consultative Council who will no doubt take into account all the considerations advanced in the question.

Mr. LYLE: Is not the chief reason for the restriction that this is a praiseworthy desire on the part of the Government to protect a young British industry? If so, would that policy not be better carried out by a system which would protect all industries instead of merely protecting one or two by means of prohibition?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question for the Prime Minister.

Captain BENN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these box-boards are treated by the Government as raw material or as manufactured articles?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question.

Captain BENN: If the Gentleman in charge of the Board of Trade is not able to answer that without notice how can he decide how to apply the principles laid down in this House for Government policy?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not have to decide them myself.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this box-board making industry a key industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 93.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much profit the Government has made on their deal in petrol; and when companies will be able to import better spirit?

Major WHELER: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the petrol now sold to motorists is of a very inferior quality; whether any instructions have been issued that this bad petrol is to be sold before a better quality supply is issued for sale to motorists; and, if so, whether he will arrange for a reduction in price at once for this inferior petrol?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The accounts between the importing companies and the Government have not yet been settled, but the prices of petroleum products have throughout been fixed so as to balance as nearly as may be the cost to the Government after allowing for the freight payable to the Ministry of Shipping for tonnage supplied. All importations of petrol up to 31st January were on Government account, and the qualities imported were the standard U.S. specifications. On that date Government purchases ceased, and the petroleum companies have since been free to import on their own account, and the sale of petrol is in their hands.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are the importing companies allowed to sell decent petrol, or are the Government insisting upon getting rid of this U.S.A. petrol?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They are not allowed to do that.

Major WHELER: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the very inferior quality of this petrol?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have not seen it, but I have heard a good deal about it.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is it not a fact that the only petrol being sold is the Government petrol, of which they had large stocks when the War came to an end?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think it would be right to say that is the only petrol being sold. There may be some of that still left.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, POLAND.

Mr. ATKEY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the position of British subjects in Poland, and in particular to the sister of Mrs. Tod, of Nottingham, who has been in that country for five years and endured privations, who cannot receive letters from this country, but who can send letters to Nottingham,
who has applied to the British Mission in Warsaw for repatriation but without avail, is quite without money and whose relatives are unable to send any, who has been compelled for the last six months to live on potatoes and beetroot, and whose position is causing anxiety to her friends; and whether he will take urgent and immediate steps which will enable this lady to be repatriated?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's representative in Warsaw has been authorised to advance to destitute British subjects sufficient money to enable them to return to the United Kingdom, also to visa their passports and make arrangements for their journey.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SHIPYARDS, CHEPSTOW.

OFFER TO ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING TRADES.

Sir CHARLES HENRY (by Private Notice): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping if it is the intention of the Ministry of Shipping to dispose of the national shipyards at Chepstow to the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, and, if so, before this course is adopted, whether an opportunity will be given to Parliament to express an opinion on this policy?

Colonel WILSON: An offer has been made by the Government to the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades in connection with the disposal of the national shipyards at Chepstow and Beachley, and the offer is now being considered by the Federation.
In reply to the second part of the question, Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing this proposal on the Estimates for the Ministry of Shipping; but, as the Government has made a definite offer to the unions concerned, I am of opinion that no good purpose would be served by a discussion at this stage.

Sir C. HENRY: Am I to understand that the question will be settled before it comes to Parliament?

Colonel WILSON: A definite offer has been made to the Federation, and the Federation are having their annual meeting at Cardiff on Thursday, when the proposal which the Government has made will be put before the Federation, and if the members of the unions in the Federation accept, then the details of the proposal will be gone into.

Sir C. HENRY: Was the right hon. Member for Cambridge, who was the promoter of the scheme of the Chepstow national shipyards, consulted before this offer was made to the Federation?

Colonel WILSON: No.

Sir E. CARSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there was any attempt to sell these shipyards to the highest bidder?

Colonel WILSON: Negotiations have been in progress for several months in connection with the disposal of these yards, and the co-operation of labour in regard to the yards was invited. That proposal has been put before the unions concerned, and, as it is possible they will accept it, the yards will be at their disposal.

Sir F. HALL: Have the unions the opportunity of purchasing this without any other authority being invited to tender for it?

Lieutenant-Colonel WILSON: An announcement was made in the Press with regard to these yards some four months ago, and every opportunity was given to anyone to come forward and make an offer for the yards. Only tentative offers have been received up to the present from anybody; no definite offer has been made at all. This is a definite proposal which has been put before the Federation of the unions concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I to understand that a definite offer has been made, and if that definite offer is accepted will this House have power to overthrow that offer and, if not, is it not a little late to discuss the matter in this House?

Lieutenant-Colonel WILSON: The offer is a definite offer made by the Government.

Sir C. HENRY: Can Parliament be made acquainted with the terms of these proposals to the Federation before they are agreed to?

Mr. A. DAVIES: (Clitheroe)
Will the same principles be applied in the event of a private purchaser offering?

Mr. SPEAKER: Some of these questions ought to go on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER LEA (DAMAGE BY FLOODS).

Lieutenant-Colonel GREENE: 85.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the serious disastrous floods which have recently taken place in the borough of Hackney owing to the overflow of the River Lea, causing many premises to become unfit for human habitation and endangering the health of the borough; and whether he can induce the authorities responsible to take such steps as may be considered advisable to prevent a recurrence of the floodings in the future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): The flooding in the Lea and Stort Valleys is now being investigated by one of the Board's engineering inspectors. This investigation will necessarily take some time, but the inspector has been instructed to report with as little delay as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN ALIENS (POOR RELIEF).

Mr. PRESTON: 86.
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a number of women aliens, the wives of Russians who returned to Russia sooner than join the Army, have been receiving permanent poor relief for over twelve months; is the amount so expended in poor relief repaid to the Poor Law authorities on his instructions; and, as a result of instructions given by the Local Government Board, do these Russian women receive better financial treatment than a destitute Englishwoman?

Major ASTOR: The payments to which the hon. Member apparently refers are allowances paid to the dependants of Russians who returned to Russia for military service in compliance with the terms of the Anglo-Russian (Military Service) Convention. The allowances, which are usually at the rate of 12s. 6d. for a wife and 3s. for each child, are only paid in necessitous cases; they are not Poor Law
relief, and are provided from Government funds administered through the agency of boards of guardians.

Oral Answers to Questions — RABIES.

Sir W. SEAGER: 87.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that there are a greater number of suspected cases of rabies in dogs in Glamorgan than in any other county in England; that no facilities exist for the preventive treatment of the human being nearer than London or Plymouth; and that any human being bitten by a rabid dog wishing prophylactic treatment is greatly handicapped; and whether he is prepared to take some action to see that a centre is established in Cardiff, that being the most accessible city in the county?

Major ASTOR: Up to the present no difficulty has been experienced in securing Pasteur treatment of persons bitten by rabid dogs. Four such cases have been reported from the South Wales area. One of those was treated at Plymouth; the other three are now undergoing treatment in London. The question of establishing additional centres is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATIONMASTERS (SALARIES).

Major DAVID DAVIES: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the salaries of stationmasters and other railway officials who have loyally served their country during the War have not yet been increased, notwithstanding that the remuneration of other branches of the service have been increased by 100 to 120 per cent.; whether he is aware that, owing to the delay in arriving at a settlement, unrest is created in the minds of the persons affected; if he can state what steps are being taken by the Government to deal with the question; and whether he can assure the House that this matter will be dealt with without any further delay?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As regards the first part of this question, I believe that it is the case that the remuneration of stationmasters and similar officials has been increased during the War, as the supervisory staff have received war increases like other grades. As regards the second part, the claim of the supervisory staff to par-
ticipate in improvements in conditions of service now being granted to men in the conciliation grades is receiving special attention, and the case of stationmasters, as they have already been informed, is not being overlooked.

Oral Answers to Questions — COFFEE (RE-EXPORTATION).

Sir J. D. REES: 92.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether licences are now being, or soon will be, freely granted for the re-export of coffee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Licences are granted freely for the export of coffee held on foreign account prior to the 15th March, 1919, and for the following six varieties: Liberian, Rio, Bahia, Pernambuco, Victorian, and West African, and also for any other coffee for which there is no market in the United Kingdom. As regards coffee imported on or after 15th March last, which is suitable for consumption in this country, export is allowed on 70 per cent., and, in addition, the Admiralty Marshal is holding from time to time auction sales of coffee purely for export. This Department has suggested to the Ministry of Food that the varieties mentioned above, for which there is no market in the United Kingdom, should be placed on List "C," but no reply has yet been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH NAVAL AND MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice): asked the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to a statement from Stockholm to the effect that the Entente are preparing naval and military operations against Petrograd based upon Helsingfors; whether there is any basis for the report; whether a British squadron has been ordered to Helsingfors; and whether naval or military operations in co-operation with Finland, or any other counter-revolutionary body, are under discussion?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention has been called to this. The first and second parts of the question I believe to be accurate. The third part of the question is not accurate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the British Government are contemplating naval or military operations against Petrograd, in the teeth of the statement made by the Prime Minister the other day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been a misunderstanding about this. I thought that the question was going to be addressed to the Foreign Office, and therefore I have not got a detailed reply. The facts are that a squadron of British ships is available, and that no such arrangement as my hon. Friend suggests has been made, and it must be obvious that, if anything of the kind were contemplated, it would be impossible to say anything about it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did I understand from my right hon. Friend that there was a basis of truth in the reports that military and naval operations were being prepared?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I meant precisely what I said. A British squadron is there and has been there for a long time, to consider whatever emergency may arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that the British Government will not be committed to an attack upon Petrograd, and will not go on in co-operation with Finland and General Mannheim without this House first being made acquainted with these operations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not give such an undertaking, but I can say that no definite proposal of the kind is at present in contemplation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the methods employed by General Mannheim in putting down the revolution in Finland ought not to be carried on against the Russian revolution with the co-operation of British arms?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure that my hon. Friend will see that if it were contemplated by the Government to take such action I could not answer such a question. The fact that I am answering such a question is proof that, at this moment at all events, no such steps are in contemplation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has this House no say in these matters?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

SUPPRESSION OF NEWSPAPER.

Captain REDMOND (by Private Notice): asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Saturday, the 10th instant, the police entered the offices of the "Waterford News," Limited, Waterford, took possession of the premises and dismantled both the job printing and newspaper plant, on the charge of publishing statements likely to cause disaffection among His Majesty's subjects. Whether this procedure completely suspends the company's business, thereby throwing out of employment twenty-one men, the majority of whom are married, and a number of girls and what steps the Government propose to take to compensate these employés whom the Government, by their own action, have caused to be unemployed?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I have received no notice of the question, but I am just informed that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has received the question. I am aware of the facts. I gave orders that the paper should be suspended, because I repeatedly warned them that their action was dangerous to the country.

Captain REDMOND: May I say a word by way of personal explanation. As the right hon. Gentleman has not been in his place for a considerable time in the House of Commons I naturally thought that the Attorney-General would be answering on his behalf. However, apart from that, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly answer the latter part of my question, and say what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to compensate these men and girls whom they have, by their own action, turned out of employment, and who are in no way responsible for the policy of the newspaper?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I quite sympathise with those people who are out of employment, but the responsibility is not the Government's. The responsibility for that cruelty belongs to the owners and editor of the paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINN FEIN VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR (by Private Notice): asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland by whose authority a number of sol-
diers in military motor lorries, armed with rifles, and with fixed bayonets, and accompanied by a machine-gun, and armoured car, took possession of the thoroughfares leading to the Mansion House, Dublin, on the afternoon of Friday, 9th May? Whether, in addition, a body of police entered the Mansion Houseon the allegation that they were searching for "certain persons" who it was suspected would be there and for whom warrants had been issued? Whether a volley was fired over the heads of a large crowd in the vicinity of the Mansion House?

Mr. MACPHERSON: In the forenoon of Friday, the 9th instant, a man named Kelly, for whose arrest warrants exist, was challenged by a police constable while endeavouring to enter the Mansion House. Kelly presented a revolver at the constable, but was prevented from using it by a bodyguard of Sinn Fein Volunteers, who immediately surrounded him and rushed him into the Mansion House, thereby preventing his arrest. He was afterwards observed inside the Mansion House, and the subsequent action of the police and military was taken with the object of arresting him, and other fugitives from justice, who were believed to be in refuge in the building. No volley was fired. The action referred to was taken with the direct authority of the Irish Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: How much longer does the Government intend to rely on methods of repression in the government of the people of Ireland?

Mr. MACPHERSON: There are no methods of repression, but any Government worthy of the name, when a man attempts to shoot in the street a humble officer of the law and commits a felony, would say that, so long as it is a felony by the law of the land, the law must be maintained.

Mr. O'CONNOR: In consequence of the character of the answer which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to call attention to the policy of the Government in employing unnecessarily and provocatively military force in Ireland?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that to-morrow there will be a discussion which raises the whole question of the administration of the law in Ireland and
the existing condition of affairs, and that that would form a suitable opportunity for discussing this very matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would see his way to raising the question then.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I understand that I shall be perfectly entitled to raise this question to-morrow evening?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR: In view of that I will accept your suggestion and raise the question in Debate to-morrow evening.

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. John William Wilson reported from the Chairmen's Panel that they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Disabled Men (Facilities for Employment) Bill).

That they had appointed Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the Check-weighing in Various Industries Bill and the Animals (Anæsthetics) Bill.

That they had appointed Mr. Mount to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPPLY (STANDING COMMITTEE C).

Mr. Macmaster reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolutions:

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1919–20.—CLASS I.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £39,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year endingon the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £75,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
1458
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £69,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Aliens Restriction Bill and the Disabled Men (Facilities for Employment) Bill): Mr. Bottomley, Sir John Butcher, Colonel Raymond Greene, Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy, Sir George Croydon Marks, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Shortt, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Tillett, Mr. Waterson, Sir Ernest Wild, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Sir Alfred Yeo.

Standing Committee E.

Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Commitee E (for the consideration of the Animals (Anæsthetics) Bill): Mr. Bottomley and Sir John Butcher.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Solicitors." [Solicitors Bill [Lords.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMET BILL,—"to amend the Law relating to the sale by retail of excisable liquors," presented by Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD; to be read a second time upon Friday, 27th June, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING IN IRELAND.

Order read for Second Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Quite recently I had the opportunity of explaining at considerable length the proposals of the Government in regard to Ireland. I discussed then the desirability of providing in Ireland a large number of new and additional houses. I also discussed the reason why I considered it necessary on the part of the Government to introduce a special Housing Bill for Ireland. We know in this House that the housing conditions in Ireland are different from the housing conditions in England. Indeed the Irish housing enactments have created a separate tradition so far as housing in that country is concerned, and I thought it might be as well to conform to these housing conditions while at the same time getting the best advantages which are in existence in the various Acts passed for England, Scotland and Wales. The House will recollect that at the time of the Convention a Committee was appointed composed of men who were deeply interested in the housing problem as it affected Ireland, and of that Committee, I think the Lord Mayors of the two great cities of Ireland were members. The housing problem in Ireland was, in the past, largely a rural problem. Three-quarters of the housing in Ireland really meant rural housing, while in other countries of the United Kingdom three-quarters of the housing really means the industrial homes of the people in the large cities. Nothing has been so remarkable as the success of Irish rural housing. I believe that within a comparatively short time no fewer than 50,000 houses have been built, and it is a great satisfaction to anybody touring through the country to see these small houses dotted all over it, where happy and contented people live, doing the agricultural work of the country. We are now faced with a more difficult problem—the housing problem as it affects Ireland in the cities. I saw a computation made recently which showed that in any case 50,000 houses should be
built in Ireland, and almost as many more restored and made homelike and suitable for living purposes.
Looking at the financial side of the question, I do not think the Government can at present give the same facilities to Ireland in its urban aspect as it gave to Ireland in its rural aspect. When the rural problem was started agriculture was in a very low state. The agricultural labourers were poorly paid, and it was absolutely necessary that the State should come in with some sort of subsidy of a very generous kind. The proposal that I submit to the House now as regards finance is a simple one. The financial proposals in the other housing Bills were based upon rates. The rates referred to large industrial centres in this country. In Ireland, apart from Belfast, there are no such large industrial centres, and it is a significant fact that the rateable value of the great majority of Irish urban areas, is less than £200,000. There are only two places in Ireland where the rateable value is over £200,000. The financial scheme divides itself into two parts. First of all the local authorities must find the money with which to build their houses. When I introduced this scheme in Ireland I was vigorously attacked on all sides because I ventured to state that the Irish local authorities could easily acquire the necessary loans in open market I was pressed to say what I meant by the open market, and I said "the banks."I found there was a good deal of difficulty about that, and I have now arranged with the Treasury that all the urban areas in Ireland shall be able to borrow from the Treasury the necessary amounts for the building schemes if the rateable value of the urban area is less than £200,000. There are only two places—Belfast and Dublin—which will have to go to the open market to acquire the loan, so I do not think there will be any difficulty in regard to that. In Belfast, particularly, you have a very large industrial population, where wages have been very high, and where, I understand, there are deposits in the local banks to the extent of £56,000,000. In Dublin the case is not quite the same. Largely, through no fault of the Dublin people, the housing conditions are very bad. One of my experts in housing, Mr. Cowan, perhaps one of the best known experts in the United Kingdom, told me the other day that 340 out of every 1,000 of the popula-
tion in Dublin lived in one room tenement houses. That, very likely, is not the fault of the people themselves. Every respectable working man is desirous of getting into better surroundings than that, but circumstances and fate have been too much for them, and they are now anxious to get the opportunity such as the Government is now prepared to give to get into better surroundings and to provide a better home for themselves and their families. The rates at Dublin are enormous—16s. 11½d. in the £, and I believe the rate for houses is as high as 6d. in the £. That is a sore burden on the people of Dublin, and if it is absolutely hopeless as far as they are concerned, if they cannot possibly provide or get the money, as I hope they will, in the open market, with the very good security which the Housing Bill provides, I must do my level best to try and approach the Treasury again and see what I can do. I am particularly anxious that in Dublin the housing scheme should proceed apace, and I am hopeful that the Corporation will come forward and do its level best to get this loan.
It will be asked what the Government propose to do if it does not accept as being suitable for Ireland the financial proposals of the other Bills. I have had to consider what is the best line, and I was helped in my consideration by the recommendation of this Committee of the Convention to which I have just referred. That Committee recommended that the Government should come in and give a 50 per cent. subsidy by the payment of 50 per cent. of the loan charges. I think I have gone a little better than that, though it is very handsome and generous. The Government is now prepared to pay not only 50 per cent. of the loan charges, but 50 per cent. of the management and upkeep and various other expenses of the houses. In other words, for every £1 of rent charged and collected for the houses now being built, or which are now being repaired and made habitable, the Government will place another £1.

Sir E. CARSON: Is it in the Bill?

Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friends will look at the Bill, they will find, on page 4, the financial provisions, and at the foot of the italicised paragraph they will see that the money is provided by Parliament, "such part of the loan as may be determined to be so payable under regulations made by the Board, with the
approval of the Treasury, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by those regulations." I find that neither in th Scottish Bill nor the English Bill are the financial details set forth. My right hon. Friend and other Friends in the House will see that this is the case, and that none of the Bills incorporate the Treasury Agreement. I shall see that the Treasury Agreement is placed before the House on the Money Resolution. I am led to understand that it is the intention to have the Treasury Agreement, as far as finance is concerned, for Scotland, discussed on the Money Resolution, and, consequently, I hope it may not be necessary to enlarge this Bill by the inclusion of what is proposed by the Treasury for Ireland. I shall be glad to give my right hon. Friend particulars of the arrangement come to.
If the House will allow me, I would like to take the Bill Clause by Clause briefly. I think that will be the best way. The first Clause, as the House will see, is merely the adoption of the Act of 1890. Part III. of this Act was adoptive in its character, and the first Clause makes that opportunity good. In regard to Clause 2, the House will see that it is a very short one, and concerns the duty of the local authority to carry the scheme into effect within such time as may be specified in the scheme, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board have already issued letters to the various local authorities explaining what the scheme should be and what time is given for the preparation of those schemes. I think each local authority is compelled to have schemes prepared and submitted to the Local Government Board before April, 1920. The third Clause is the default Clause of the Bill, and is taken bodily from the English and Scottish Bills. It amounts to this, that if a local authority refuses to exercise the powers conferred by this Bill the Local Government Board can come in and use them to the advantage of the people Clause 4 gives power to act in default of the local authority under Parts I. and II. of the principal Act. I have already dealt with the fifth Clause. The sixth Clause is a very important Clause and a very far reaching one. In the old days it was extremely difficult to get possession of land because one had to examine titles and perforce to undergo a good deal of legal trouble before the land could be acquired. Under this Clause the
procedure is very simple. Notice is given, and within a fortnight occupation of the land may take place and the scheme may proceed. I propose also to include a similar Clause to that which is included in the English and Scottish Bills dealing with slum property and the compensation to be paid to the owners of slum property. Clause 7 gives additional powers as to the acquisition of land, and is an addition to Part III. of the Act of 1890. It extends the powers of that Act, and gives powers to the local authorities much more than they have at present. I do not think there is any other material Clause in the Bill to which I need draw any special attention except Clause 9, which deals with the provision of houses by public utility societies. It is the case that in Ireland at present public utility societies have received assistance from the Government, and this Clause amplifies the power to do so. I understand that a number of houses have been built by public utility associations, and I am hopeful that this Clause by extending and amplifying the powers we have at present will be highly beneficial to the community.

Mr. KELLY: Are they receiving the same financial terms as the local authorities, that is 50 per cent.?

Mr. MACPHERSON: They are not on the same basis at all, but I will tell my hon. Friend later what is the basis. I think the basis is not nearly so good as that of the local authorities, and it could not possibly be so good. However, I will make further inquiries and let my hon. Friend know. Clause 16 is an Amendment of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, which has proved to be a very useful measure. It is highly creditable to the occupiers of small houses that they should so ardently desire to become owners of those houses. In the past the Treasury refused sanction to the acquisition of any house which cost more than £400. It has been forced upon me that the value of money is now quite different, and £400 before the War would be the equivalent of about £800 now. I do not know whether it is the wish of my hon. Friends from Ireland that I should request the Treasury to alter the word "four" and make it "eight hundred." If it is, I will do my level best to meet them, because I was particularly struck by a deputation which I met of working men who were anxious, and they told me so were their
fellow workmen, to be not only the occupiers but the owners of the houses in which they lived.

Sir A. FELL: Will they occupy houses costing £800?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told so. The £800 now represents about £400 before the War. I am told that the cost of building has doubled, or in many cases more than doubled. The Treasury in the past was quite willing to sanction £400, and if you want the same class to have the houses now, you will have to go as far as £800, and, as has been pointed out, the Government has never lost a penny under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. I should be very happy to listen to any criticisms of the Bill. There is no doubt that the housing problem is an urgent one in Ireland, and I should be very glad to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and I will do my level best to make it as perfect as possible, with the guidance and criticism of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Sir E. CARSON: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has pressed on the introduction of this Bill. Something may be ascertained of the backward condition of legislation with regard to the housing of the working classes in Ireland if you turn to the Schedule which, for the first time, brings in certain of the enactments of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903, which has been fifteen years in force in this country, and also brings in the effective Sections of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909. Parliament in its wisdom thought that town planning might be all very well for England and Scotland, but that it was a matter that was not at all useful in Ireland. I am very glad my right hon. Friend has taken care to introduce these Sections into the Bill. It is only one more instance of the folly of Ireland not insisting upon having all legislation and the same benefits conferred upon us that are conferred upon the other parts of the United Kingdom. As regards this Bill, my only fear is that it will operate very slowly. Everything has to pass through the Local Government Board. I do not want at all to criticise the Local Government Board, but, having regard to the want of houses in Ireland, if we are to have a really speedy, go-ahead policy, I would ask my right hon. Friend to take care that a very efficient, go-ahead staff is set up ad hocfor this particular purpose at the Local Government Board. You really can-
not have, in a matter of this kind, schemes, costs, finance, contractors, bricks and mortar, and everything else in the present condition of affairs. It cannot be left to the ordinary red-tape methods of Government, and you want really somebody of driving power. I am sure my right hon. Friend will not think that I am making any hostile criticism either upon the Bill or upon the Local Government Board when I say that really everything as regards this Bill and the pushing on of it will depend on what is the motive power and the driving force at the Local Government Board.
As regards the houses, there is one point I am extremely anxious to make and to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend, and that is this: I most earnestly hope that in the selection of sites for these workmen's dwellings you will not select sites for their cheapness, and because they are ugly. I think one of the most miserable things, even where fairly good workmen's dwellings have been erected, is to see them in street after street, dull, uninteresting, with no playground near, and not a particle of garden, or flower, or vegetable, or tree, or anything that would interest the occupants after their day's work or their children as they grow up. I do most earnestly press upon the Government to insist, when their inspectors go to look at these schemes, that they will take care that they are in really healthy places. Take the case of Belfast. I have seen houses—and very good houses—in Belfast which are built in a swamp, which is the wrong place in which to build them. On the other hand, near the Waterworks in Belfast there are 400 houses erected in a most beautiful district, with avenues leading up to them, and with trees and gardens. They are houses fit for anybody to occupy, and it did one good to go into them. What was the secret of those houses? The people who occupy them were the owners. I believe those 400 houses are owned by men in the shipyards, chiefly engaged in Harland and Wolff's, and Workman and Clarke's. I went in and chatted with many of the occupants. They were as proud of those houses as any man might be of a castle, and rightly so. The comfort that was evident there and the furniture generally belonging to those people were worthy of the best in the land.
I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to see whether as regards the Acquisition of Dwellings Act he cannot extend it much farther. I asked one or
two of the wives of the men who showed me over the houses: "What is the secret? How do you get all these people in these 400 houses, down these avenues, to have such neat gardens and neat window curtains and the whole place having an appearance of prosperity which I have not seen in any other part of the city?" "Oh," they said, "if anyone comes here and does not keep up to the standard of neatness that we have we very soon get rid of them." I also asked this question, which is one I have heard discussed over and over again, "What happens when someone dies?" One man said "I have only just come into this house. The previous tenant died, and there were a dozen applicants, only too willing to pay their deposit and pay off their instalments." That is the kind of thing you want to encourage in a great industrial district. We hear a great deal in this House about the health of the people, and a great deal about liquor traffic and about discontent. I most honestly believe the question of housing is at the back of all these questions. I believe, taking it in a most selfish way for what are called the very wealthy classes, they may very well contribute in any way they are asked to the housing of the people even if nothing more. No matter what your medical arrangements may be, no matter what doctors you may have, no matter what Poor Law system you may have, you cannot expect that there will be good health if there are bad in sanitary houses. I believe the majority of men would rather go home to these houses and settle down for the evening than go into a public-house, squander their money and come home in a bad temper to their wives and families. At the root of the drink question is this question of housing as much as any other, and now that we are starting out on this policy let us not do it as a sort of jerry-building transaction. Let them be really proper houses, and let us not imagine that every inch of ground is a gold mine which has to be purchased at gold-mine prices. I should like to see these houses extend more and more out into the country, and facilities given for electric trams.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, although I do not think it is in either the English or the Scottish Bill, whether the employers ought not to be encouraged to build houses, and better houses. One of the things that always struck me, not being in business myself, being merely a professional man, as so
extraordinary, is that the employer of large works, employing a great number of men, will spend any amount of money on an engine-house or a machinery-house of some kind, but he seems to grudge spending it upon the house of the real machine that sets everything else in motion. I suggest whether in connection with utility societies, which I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman has provided for here, there might not be schemes either by the employers or by the men. The men are now beginning in many of these large industries to have a considerable amount of savings, and it would be very well to consider whether you might not have schemes, either by employers or by the men or jointly by the employers and the men, with a view to seeing whether the houses could not be built more quickly and further and further improved.
My one adverse criticism of the Bill is my scepticism as to the finance. I am not at all sure that under the Bill you will get the money. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman said that in the case of urban districts under £200,000 rateable value, the Government means to advance the money. I think he might very well go the whole way of saying they would advance it in all large districts. I am not for a moment questioning that there is an obligation on Belfast and Dublin to erect their own houses. I regret to introduce what may appear, but really is not in my mind, one word of politics. We are asking the urban authorities of Belfast and Dublin to raise loans. At what price do you think they will be able to raise loans in the present condition of Ireland? The Corporation of Belfast to-morrow issues a loan. Will it be 5 per cent.? You can get an Imperial loan at that. Will you get it at 6 per cent., 7 per cent., or 8 per cent.? Are we going to have an Irish Republic? If so, what is the money being lent for? As long as you have Imperial credit I quite agree you will get the money, but the one thing the right hon. Gentleman was rather optimistic about was when he said you have a number of banks in Belfast, and now I know all the banks of Belfast are united with great banking institutions in this country. He said, "All you have to do is to go to the banks." Good old banks! No, I do not think the banks will be very easily induced at ordinary rates to part with their money to erect these cottages when they do not even know what is going to be the future government of Ireland. It is all very
well if the Imperial Government will say, "Whatever happens, if we cannot get it out of the Corporation, we will back you up," or if they were able to say "good and solid government will be kept up in Ireland." That might be all right, but it is no pessimism on my part that prompts me to make this point, because I feel perfectly certain, when Dublin and Belfast float these loans, they will have very grave difficulty, and I doubt very much whether any banks, except on a very small scale from time to time, and in accordance as schemes are completed, will allow large sums to be advanced on security of this kind in the political circumstances of Ireland. I hope I am wrong. I had a conversation a short time ago with a man who dealt largely in the North of Ireland in iron contracts, and he told me he was about to close his account. He thought things looked so uncertain there. Therefore, I am not optimistic. I may even be coloured by political bias, as the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) would say—and he is the best judge of that, as he never is. But, be that as it may, there is one thing that he and I will agree upon. We should like to get the money for the purpose, and that is what I am at. I do not want this to be a failure. It is a very serious thing in my Constituency. It is a very grave thing in Belfast. I remember a few years ago people used to say, "There are a lot of mad builders here. The whole place has been overbuilt." There is not a house to be got now for love or money, and the truth of the matter is that Belfast is extending at the rate of about 5,000 a year in population, and if this Bill is a failure, so much the worse for Belfast. I should, therefore, like to see the whole Bill a success, and I throw out these matters not in the least in a spirit of hostile criticism, because I feel grateful that we are having the Bill, and I feel grateful for some of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman has done as regards the Treasury in relation to the Bill. The most advantageous thing we can do is to get it passed as soon as possible, and I hope when it goes into Committee we shall have a sympathetic tribunal which will do the best it can for our country.

Mr. DEVLIN: I thought the right hon. Gentleman and myself had a sufficiently wide field day last Friday without either his offering the invitation or my accepting it to have another one to-day, because on a matter so vital as the education of
the people one necessarily must have strong views. There is not the slightest necessity to-day for either him or myself to engage either in placid or in violent controversy, because the question of housing is one on which I think we can all agree. Therefore, with regard to the future system of government in Ireland I do not propose to enter into arguments with him. Apart altogether from the almost universal passion that exists in these Islands for a higher, a better, and a nobler standard of life, we must all universally congratulate ourselves upon the high civic instinct, and the ambition to try to create for the toiling masses of these Islands a higher and a better life. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that of all the great social problems which require and are ever pressing on the attention of public-spirited men, this question of housing takes precedence. Bad housing is, in my judgment, at the root of nearly every evil. Good housing is, in my judgment, the inspiration of cleanliness and the development of character and the fashioning of that higher and nobler life which the mass of humanity are aiming at in every intelligent community to-day.
Those of us who have followed the agricultural development of Ireland during the last twenty years, must recognise how splendid is the monument which was erected in Ireland by the passage of the Agricultural Labourers Act. I remember once reading a dispatch by General Buller, when he was sent to Kerry in 1884, to stamp out what was then a great political movement of the Land League. He wrote a letter, in which he asked to be recalled, and in the course of that letter said, "The Land League is the salvation of these people." He said, "Would you believe it? I have seen the East African in his kraal and the Hottentot in his cabin, but I have never seen such appalling conditions as exist in this country"—the horrible slum conditions in which these agricultural labourers were compelled to live. Under the Agricultural Labourers Act, 60,000 labourers' cottages have taken the place of the squalid and scandalous slum dwellings, and what do we see in Ireland? We see these little rural palaces raised up all over the country, beautifying the landscape and being the homes of an almost transformed peasantry. These houses not only give comfort and health and cheerfulness to the inmates, but they exalt and elevate the character of the in-
mates, and they breed a finer generation and inspire a potential manhood that is bound to be the very foundation and bedrock of a great and successful country. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Give a man a clean, healthy and well-lighted home, and you keep him in his home, instead of sending him out to enjoy the meretricious attractions of a well-lighted public-house. I do not think you can complain or attack working men for rushing into a public-house out of a slum dwelling in one of our large cities, because what do we find? I have in my own Constituency walked into the houses of some of these poor working people. I have seen for a family of five or six a little room upstairs and one downstairs, and a kitchen, and in the kitchen a mother and family engaged in the weekly washing. The children are gathered round, and the man comes home after his day's laborious toil in either the shipyard or other great industry, and this is the sight that presents itself to him. How, under these circumstances, can you inspire sobriety; how can you attract working men to home life? How can you have anything else than the dull, sordid, uninteresting life which the great mass of toilers in the great centres of our industrial life have to undergo?
We want to see in our towns and cities precisely the same results springing from the building of genuinely comfortable and clean dwellings as we have witnessed in the agricultural areas of the land. The condition of the people through improved housing makes also for a sense of responsibility and civic dignity. It creates cleanliness, it gives comfort, it makes home life attractive. I do not make this as an Irish complaint at all. I think democracy all over these islands has the right to make this complaint. But what is, in my judgment, the most vital and pressing of our great social problems has been so long neglected that, although twenty years ago the Irish Housing Act was passed, we have had to wait for twenty years before we have had an opportunity of grappling with this ever insistent demand of the people for a more elevated life in the form of better housing. I would have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had given a more ample explanation of to why these financial proposals are different from the English financial proposals. The English financial proposals are that, where the local authority strikes a 1d. rate, the State will pay the remainder. I would have
been glad—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do so later on—if he had explained why similar financial conditions are not being laid down for Ireland. I hope he will let us know whether he is prepared to press for Treasury aid for this Irish scheme, at least as good as that which has been given in England and in Scotland.
I now come to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) with regard to the appointment of Commissioners. I agree with him thoroughly that there should be a special ad hoc set of Commissioners appointed to carry out this work. The very nature of the case makes the demand urgent, and if you are going to set up old machinery, or machinery fashioned out by an institution like the Local Government Board with antiquated notions, if you are going to burden that Board and its inspectors with a colossal task of this character—for it will be a colossal task to build 50,000 houses at the rate, probably, of 3,000 or 4,000 a year if the thing is efficiently and properly done—I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to appoint a special ad hoc set of Commissioners to do this work. I have no doubt he will give very sympathetic consideration to that suggestion. I also agree that it is most important that compulsory powers should be embodied in the measure to enable occupying tenants to buy, and, in the case of new houses built, I think every facility should be given to the occupants of these houses to buy them if they so desire. One of the most eloquent appeals—in fact, it was not one eloquent appeal; it was a series of appeals continuously made by Ministers—was for the well paid working classes to try and save money during the fat years when they are receiving large wages. What could be more inviting or encouraging to a working man who is able to save 5s. or 10s. a week, than to invest it in the ownership of his house, giving him that security which is, in my opinion, an inspiration to thrift in the highest degree, because it is not the healthy character of the house; it is not even that it is built where it is; it is not even that it is an improvement upon old conditions. It is the sense of security that makes the man take a great interest in his home and in his work. If a man has a house, he will say, "This is mine." What is the secret of the splendid growth and development of sobriety and character!
It is the sense of ownership. An Irish tenant no longer feels that if he improves his land the fruits of his labour will go to another. An Irish farmer beautifies his cottage, makes all that is round him bright and cheerful. He can say, "I am doing this for myself and my family." A sense of security is the best asset he has, and a source of encouragement to him to be thrifty, and he ought to have every opportunity extended to him to enable him to acquire his house. The money advanced for this purpose ought to be for sixty-eight and a half years at 2½ per cent., covering principal and interest.
I think also there ought to be—and that is again why I say it is most vital that there ought to be independent Commissioners appointed—greater attention paid to the character of these houses. I am not here to defend the Dublin Corporation and I do not represent it, but I do say that the two great municipalities in Ireland, the Dublin Corporation and the Belfast Corporation, have done as much as civic virtue could inspire men to do to improve the housing in these two great cities. When we hear the Dublin Corporation attacked, we must remember that a year or six months before the Revolution they attempted to raise a loan of their own without any State assistance at all for the purpose of clearing away the squalid slums that so disfigure the life of the metropolis of that country. But the Government would not allow them, owing to the financial exigencies of the War. I venture to say that if they had been allowed to raise the loan at the time, clear away these slums and provide better dwellings for the people, much of the trouble which has arisen since might have been avoided. No municipality in the three kingdoms has done more for housing than the Dublin Corporation.
The Belfast Corporation also has done its duty in this matter, though I must say my experience of the houses built by the Belfast Corporation does not inspire me to believe that sufficient thought is given to the character of these dwellings. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about that. I am not saying that it is the Corporation's fault, but I know that in my Constituency, where something like 300 or 400 houses have been built, in one house I was in during my election while canvassing, I found there was not even a back yard to this house or any sanitary accommodation of any sort or kind. It was the
last house in a row of new houses. I do not know the cause of it, but I must say that when I went into these houses one by one I thought they might have been far bigger and I marvelled at the life these people live. They were all mill-workers, mostly women, and a great many widows of men who had gone to the War and were killed. Yet the mere fact that they were in the houses, though there was some discomfort, the great cleanliness encouraged me to believe that if you build decent houses for the people, if you only give them a chance when they come home at night from their work to see a clean and cheerful habitation in which to spend an evening with their children, it would be one of the most precious pieces of legislation that was ever fashioned in any country in the world.

Mr. A. L. PARKINSON: Hear, hear!

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the hon. Member agree with my eloquence or with my facts?

Mr. PARKINSON: Both!

Mr. DEVLIN: I have brought the hon. Member, I am glad to say, into agreement with me, but, of course, being an Englishman, he is keeping his eye on the moneybox.

Mr. PARKINSON: No!

5.0 P.M.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am not sure, though, as to what is the capacity in which he sits. In the one capacity he will probably find that he has been the sole custodian of the Treasury in this House. To return to the housing. In these houses there ought to be three small bedrooms, if possible, a little parlour, and, again if possible, some sort of garden. Who can justify the conditions existing in our great urban communities when it is said that there are children up to eleven and twelve years of age who have never seen a blade of grass? [An Hon. Member: "Oh!"] Yes, that is so. They have never been brought out of these districts, out of the narrow streets where they have no place to play. When I go around London, one of the finest things, in my judgment, that the London County Coucil has done is that wherever they can get a piece of vacant ground they grow flowers upon it. Wherever they build houses they make it a point to see that there is a garden for the children, or a playground adjacent. My experience of the building of houses
in Ireland is that those concerned rush up a series of commonplace buildings which look like one great workhouse. There are neither flowers, nor green grass, nor anything of beauty to teach the eye or to inspire the imagination of the children with a sense of what is beautiful. This ought to be a Bill not only to rush people into rooms where they can live and sleep, but it should be one for the purpose of making the whole surroundings a thing of beauty, an attraction, a fascination, something which will make those who live in the houses believe that, after all, we are not engaged in camouflage when, in Parliament or outside, we say to the people that we want to make these Islands lands for heroes to live in. We cannot put up a real place for heroes where there is an absence of cleanliness and good sanitation. You require sweetened home conditions and beauty, and where these things are absent heroism will not spring up until we realise that we will have failed to discharge the first functions for which we were sent to Parliament.
That is all I desire to say, because, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I have no desire to do other than to expedite any genuine attempt to solve this problem. The Bill will now go before a Committee of the House. We shall be there able to discuss it in all its details, and in a calmer atmosphere than the right hon. Gentleman and myself enjoyed in our peregrinations through the various Clauses of the Proportional Representation Bill. After all, this Bill proposes to do some work of public utility. I do not believe that this Parliament has any right to legislate for Ireland at all. I am not here to do any good. I am here to prevent mischief. But if I see a good thing for Ireland, or anything that will benefit my country, I will support it, pending the time when the Fourteen Points of President Wilson will be recognised by the members of the Coalition Government. Until we realise that we have fought for the right of small nations to fashion their own destinies—until that time comes—I am not going to allow my Constituents in Belfast to live under sordid conditions in squalid slums if I get the opportunity of giving them better homes, and improved human conditions, thus creating a higher and a finer life, and giving them the advantage of enjoying some of the things which Providence ordained they should have. These have been denied to them by the iniquitous, economic
and industrial system under which they have been crushed down. So long as I have the opportunity here or elsewhere of rendering the service I suggest, I shall be prepared to render it.

Major O'NEILL: It is possible that some English Members who are listening to this Debate may put down the unusual measure of agreement with which we, the Irish Members, have approached this Bill, to the fact that it is a Bill which is to provide British money for the advancement of an Irish cause. I, for one, do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken when he welcomed that state of affairs. We in Ireland are always agreed when the British Treasury feel themselves able to come forward and advance by financial help a measure such as this, which is of real benefit to the people of the country. Both my right hon. and learned Friends, the Member for the Duncairn Division and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, referred to the fact that good housing is one of the most important and vital necessities, for a contented and happy population. They further acknowledged, which is an un-controvertible fact also, that bad housing and bad conditions, people living under conditions which are not fit for animals, and in houses which should be condemned by every decent member of society—conditions such as these are the breeding ground of discontent and much else from which to-day many countries are suffering. Not only is bad housing largely responsible for the drink evil, not only is it largely responsible for other evils of that character, but it is largely at the back of that greater evil, Bolshevism, and the extreme Socialism which is stalking through Europe to-day, and is causing so much difficulty, not only to the Government of this nation, but to the Governments of nearly every civilised nation of the world.
There is one point in regard to this Bill on which I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it will give me some attention. The first Clause provides for the adoption of Part III. of the principal Act of 1890 by every urban district or town in Ireland. I want to know what is the position of a town not having the status to have town commissioners, or an urban district council? There are many large villages in Ireland much larger than the average village in this country, but not large enough to have an urban district council. I know many in my part of the country. In some of these places the
housing conditions are as bad or worse than they are even in the larger centres of population. If we are going to have Housing Bills such as this, upon a large and comprehensive scale dealing with the question of housing in the Irish urban districts I say that the Bill is not complete and it does not carry to a logical conclusion its full functions unless it contains some means whereby these smaller places, which are not villages and not towns, which have a population of anything between 500 and 2,000 can benefit and the disgusting hovels in which human beings now live in these places are swept away and new houses put up.
The size of this problem has been referred to by the last speaker, who was a member of the Housing Committee of the Convention. He gave the number of houses required. But the Convention Report stated that the houses required throughout Ireland in the urban districts were not 50,000 but 67,000, and they put down the cost at £27,000,000. That shows the immense size of this problem. Perhaps it will bring it forth even more strikingly if I mention a matter which appeared in the Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland for 1918. This gives the total number of loans which have been advanced for housing purposes in Ireland since the passing of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. The Report states:
Since 1890 the total amount raised by loan for this purpose has been £1,638,950.
So that in this one Bill, if it is to carry out its express object, we propose to spend more, thirteen and a half times as much, upon housing as has been spent in Ireland during the whole of the intervening period since 1890. That is an enormous proposition. I should have very grave doubts whether it could possibly be done by any Bill were it not for the fact that this Bill contains two attributes not contained in any previous Housing of the Working Classes Bill. First of all, it provides financial aid, as we have heard. Secondly, it contains a mandatory provision in respect to local authorities, to which reference has also been made. I hope, and believe, in spite of the fact that we have had Housing of the Working Classes Bills before, that these Bills have passed this House, and that in all the years during which they have been in operation we can only at the end see ourselves faced with this appalling problem both in Ireland and
Great Britain, that there will be a greater hope for the future of this Bill by reason of these two provisions—financial aid and mandatory powers—that the local authority shall do their duty. The finance of the Bill is, of course, by far its most important aspect. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary one or two questions, and for more details than he has given when he spoke. One of the principal difficulties troubling the minds of those taking an interest in this matter was where the money was to be borrowed. As my right hon. Friend stated, borrowing money by local authorities now, under present conditions, would not be an easy matter. We are now told that the amount is going to be advanced by the Treasury—

Mr. MACPHERSON: Upon loan?

Major O'NEILL: Yes, upon loans by the Treasury. At what rate of interest will it be? I presume that question cannot be answered, but I expect it cannot be less than 5 per cent. What is to be the date of these loans? Then, quite apart from where the money is to be got, there is the equally important question as to how, when it has been obtained by the local authorities, it can be expended as a commercial proposition. We know it cannot be a commercial proposition under the present condition of affairs, with the great increase in the cost of labour and the rate of interest on money. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Treasury propose, first of all, to help the local authorities with regard to the service of these loans to the extent of 50 per cent. I take it that would be an annual payment.

Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as the Treasury are concerned, there are two conditions. First of all, in regard to these local authorities, where the rateable value is less than £200 it loans the money. Secondly, for every £1 of rent charged by the local authorities the Treasury puts down another £1.

Major O'NEILL: Then the amount of the rent goes in payment of the service of the loan? It is an annual payment, and a payment of 50 percent. of the rent received from these houses every year. So far, so good. I do not agree with the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) that this financial arrangement is less favourable than the one contained in the English Bill. If anything I think it is more favourable, and I thank the Chief Secretary for
the way in which he has successfully approached the Treasury on this matter. We must not forget one point about the finance of these Bills, and it is that it seems to me most undesirable that this question of housing should ever come to be regarded as a question which cannot, under any circumstances, be self-supporting and pay its own way. If the Treasury give help, as they are doing, I think that that help should be recognised as a special payment to meet the unprecedented conditions which now exist and to meet an unforeseen and extraordinary state of affairs which has arisen out of the War. As that state of affairs passes away I do feel that the building question in Ireland should eventually be able to go back to be a commercial proposition so that it can be carried on in the future without the necessity for Government aid. I do not believe that you will ever get a really successful condition of Government housing for the people in any country so long as it depends upon Government doles for its success, and you will never get private enterprise to enter the building trade and put up houses so long as the matter is an utterly uncommercial undertaking dependent upon Government aid. I feel that for the future it is most vital that these rates should be framed upon such a scale that they will enable private builders to undertake building propositions as a commercial business, and that eventually you may restore the building trade, which is, of course, a private enterprise, and which a Bill such as this for the time being has utterly killed.
I wish to echo what the hon. Member for the Falls Division has stated about the type of the houses. I believe the Convention recommended two types and that the bulk of the houses should be self-contained with two or three bedrooms, a kitchen and scullery, and a bathroom, and the other class was to be slightly better with a parlour. That, I presume, will be the basis upon which the houses will be built, and those kind of houses to-day are not going to cost less than £400. I was going to mention an economic rent on that point, but I am afraid that would be trespassing upon the financial part of the Bill. Apart from the type of the house inside I also hope that the Government will consider the architectural qualities of these houses. Ireland is a country of many wonderful attributes. My hon. Friend who has just spoken drew a wonderful picture of a peaceful, contented, happy, and pros-
perous rural population enjoying the great benefits which have been bestowed upon them by the beneficial legislation of a British Parliament in passing such Acts as the Labourers Acts and the Land Purchase Acts. He drew a most eloquent picture of all that; in fact, if any foreigner or any stranger unconnected with the world as it is at the present time had been in the House at that moment he might have thought, of all countries in the world, here at least we had come to the ideal spot where the people were spending their days in repose and quietude. Those of us who know Ireland will realise that the picture he painted was possibly not quite an accurate description of the state of affairs as they exist to-day in Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: I did not paint that picture at all. That is your picture.

Major O'NEILL: I merely refer to a picture which has been painted, partly by the hon. Member opposite and partly by myself, and I am merely referring to it on the question of architecture in Ireland. In spite of all this wonderfully contented population I do not think there is any country in Western Europe in which the architecture of the bulk of the houses to be seen is so utterly bad as it is in Ireland. I have travelled in most parts of Europe, in North and South America, and in the East, and I have never seen in any civilised country so little decent architecture as is to be seen in Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has the hon. and gallant Member ever seen the houses built by the Wexford Town Council?

Major O'NEILL: I am speaking of the average Irish village, and I will go further and say that the average Irish farmhouse is a creation of hideosity such as it would be difficult to find in any part of the world. You find a plain slate roof with a single gable and a door, with one window on one side and one on the other. It is a curious thing, but I suppose it is that the people, for some reason or other, do not care about having their houses really looking decent outside.

Mr. DEVLIN: The landlords would put on extra rent if they had to put in another window.

Major O'NEILL: I hope that as a result of this Bill houses will be built which, as far as it can be done, will to some extent cure this architectural deficiency from which Ireland suffers more than any other
country in Europe. It is necessary when we have built these houses and when we have got the people to live in them that they should be properly kept. I think, it is most important that the women who are to be the housewives and who have to live in these houses should know how to keep them. We all know that when we go into some workers' cottages you find one clean, spick-and-span, neat, and well looked after, the pots and pans clean, and the floors well washed. You go into another cottage next door—

Mr. PARKINSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I want to know are we washing the floors of these dwellings or listening to a discussion on this Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member is going beyond the Bill.

Mr. PARKINSON: I think he is.

Major O'NEILL: I was referring to the difference which all of us have noticed when we go into working-class houses between one person's house and another. In some you do find everything clean, whilst in the next house there may be a man with the same income, and you find things in a very different state, everything dirty, and the house altogether in a state in which it should not be. Therefore, I feel that it is important, whilst providing these houses, that measures should be taken in our educational system, or in whatever way it can be done, to keep the houses decent, and make them houses which are really worth living in. The whole of Ireland has been taking an interest in this Bill, and, of all the reconstructive measures that have been brought forward, none has excited more interest or greater hopes than this scheme, and I sincerely trust, when the Bill becomes law, it will be carried out under the authorities set up by the Local Government Board, who should do nothing else, and, if all that comes about, I believe, as a result of this Bill, you will have done something to hasten the day when at last we shall have peace in Ireland, and, at any rate, you will benefit the working classes of that country.

Mr. E. KELLY: It would have been of great assistance to the House if, before this Bill came on for Second Reading, the Chief Secretary could have supplied us with explanatory statements such as
have been supplied by the President of the Local Government Board in the case of the English Bill. Those statements contained a very large amount of information. One, for instance, gave an estimate of the probable expenditure, another gave details of the financial assistance to public utility societies and housing trusts, a third gave the financial assistance to local authorities, and a fourth gave a statement of the procedure under the existing Housing Acts and the effect of the proposed Amendments with regard to housing and town planning. Those statements were very necessary, and very helpful in the case of the English Bill, where so much was simply referred to the Local Government Board. The same procedure is being followed in the case of the Irish Bill, and such assistance is no less necessary to enable us to understand the true purport and tendency of its Clauses. I defy anyone to have the remotest inkling of the real purpose of the financial Clauses in the Bill without some such fairly complete explanatory statement. I hope, therefore, that the Chief Secretary will see his way to supply us with similar statements at as early a date as possible, and, at any rate, before the Committee stage of the Bill. The great fault that I have to find with the way that this Bill has been fashioned is the want of certainty in which it leaves the local authorities. Contrast the position of an Irish local authority with that of an English or Scottish local authority The President of the English and Scottish Local Government Boards is in a position practically to say to the English and Scottish local authorities, "Go home and levy a penny rate, and we will do the rest. You contribute the proceeds of your penny rate to your housing scheme, and all the deficit will be borne by the Treasury."
This Bill, of course, makes it obligatory on the various local authorities to carry out housing schemes, and the threat is held over their heads that if they do not do so the Local Government Board will come down and do it for them. These penal Clauses are very stringent. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the local authorities, and they are bound to carry out that duty. I submit that the path should be made as easy as possbile for them, and that they should be given all the financial certainty possible. That financial certainty is given to the local authorities in England and Scotland. They levy their
penny rate and go ahead with their housing schemes, and they know the extent to which their local finance will be affected, no matter how large the housing scheme may turn out to be, no matter what unforeseen expenditure may be involved, and no matter to what length they may be led in providing housing accommodation and perhaps in engaging in some moderate scheme of town planning. Such certainty has been denied to all the Irish authorities, and it is a very great blot on the Bill. What does the financial proposal of the hon. Gentleman really amount to when it is boiled down? We are driven every time to contrast our finance with the finance in the year 1913–14. The real effect of this Bill is to put the Irish authorities in a position to borrow money from the Treasury and to make them responsible for the repayment of the whole sum. Houses which cost £250 in 1913–14 cost £500 to-day. The Treasury come in and say that they will pay half the cost of the repayment of that loan. First of all, the local authority has to apply for the loan on the terms of to-day, which are double the terms of 1913. The Treasury then offer to pay half the interest, thereby placing the local authorities in the same position as if in 1913 the Treasury had said to them that they were willing to lend them the money, say, at 5 per cent. outside the sinking fund. I do not think that is a very great concession, or that it would have been regarded as a very great concession in 1913, if the Government had then lent the local authorities money at the current market rate of interest to build houses for the working classes. I do not think it would have been a very great concession then, and I do not regard it as a very great concession in these days of inflation—an inflation which has been deliberately and steadfastly produced by the Government themselves—for the Government to say that they will assist the local authorities to undo some of the mischief which they themselves have been perpetrating ever since the War started.
I should like the Chief Secretary to make it clear if the Treasury contribution towards the repayment of the loan is to continue until the loan is completely paid off. He has already been requested to state the terms and duration of these loans. He is, of course, aware of the very generous terms granted to the local authorities in the case of both the English and Scottish Bills, and that the period of repayment has been lengthened to an
extent which we must all admit is most generous, and which is the utmost that any local authority could request. I am not at all sure that the financial terms which have been offered to the Irish authorities by the Chief Secretary can at all compare with those offered to the English and Scottish local authorities. The Chief Secretary believes that the Treasury have given us better terms than they have given to England and Scotland. We have heard of the Treasury lucky bag before, and we Irish Members are accustomed to find out that these golden promises do not fructify. There is some revision of regulations, or something that was overlooked, or something that was understood in a different way by the people who were giving and by those who were getting. Take, for instance, the case which will be characteristic of a great many Irish towns. Let us suppose that an ordinary Irish urban district finds that it needs to build fifty houses. Taking those houses at £500 each, that urban district will have to apply for a loan of £25,000. The interest on that sum at the lowest rate without any sinking fund will be £1,250. I take the rent of each house at £10, because that is the rent which seems to be contemplated for a £500 house in the English financial proposals. Those fifty houses at a rent of£10 each produce £500. The Treasury put down another £500, making £l,000. There is, therefore, a deficit of £250 on the interest alone. Can we hope to raise that at a less rate than 5 per cent. May we not expect to have to pay a higher rate? Then is there not ½, ¾, or 1 per cent. for sinking fund to be added? How is this deficit of £250, of perhaps £300, or £400, to be met? I presume that it will have to be met out of the rates.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Under the Irish scheme there will be nothing at all charged on the rates.

Mr. E. KELLY: The remark of the right hon. Gentleman shows the difficulty in which the House is placed by having rather intricate financial statements made verbally when they might just as easily have been put on paper and hon. Members have been given time to digest them. I understand that 50 per cent. of the loan charges will be paid by the Treasury, and that the local authorities will pay the other 50 per cent.

Mr. MACPHERSON: If a house cost £500, 15s. per week, including payment of loan charges, interest, management and so on, would be a good rent if an ordinary builder had built it. The occupier of the house will pay 7s. 6d. per week and the State will come in and pay the remaining 7s. 6d., so that the ratepayers will not pay a single penny.

Mr. KELLY: I am still not clear in my mind that the Treasury contribution plus the rent of the occupant will exceed the interest, the sinking fund, and all the charges, but I will not pursue the question any further as no doubt it will be elucidated when the figures which are promised are forthcoming.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I shall be happy to make a statement.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will it be a printed statement?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.

Mr. KELLY: There is one other point in regard to which I would like to join in the appeal which has been made by the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson). There is a total omission from the Bill of any town-planning Clauses. The only reference to town planning is in the Schedule, which enables the Lord Lieutenant, by Order in Council, if he thinks fit, to enact for Ireland certain Sections of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909. That Act is not obligatory, and a Section enabling the Lord Lieutenant to bring it into force is not obligatory, so that when we examine it we find that in drafting the Bill town planning has almost disappeared altogether. I have looked at the Sections of the Housing and Town Planning Act which maybe incorporated in this Bill, and I think there is only one contained in the Act of 1909, and a very weak Section at that. It provides that any local authority, in connection with the exercise of them by their powers under Part III. of the principal Act, may lay out and construct public streets or roads on land acquired or appropriated by them for the purpose, or may contribute to the laying-out and construction of such streets and roads.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that is contained in the Schedule. Certainly other Sections are being made applicable in this case.

Mr. KELLY: Sections 5 to 7.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Sections 2 to 3, 5 to 7, 14 to 29, and 36 to 51. I shall be happy to give my hon. Friend full particulars.

Mr. KELLY: I am very glad to hear that. I had it always in my mind that this was a suitable opportunity for dealing with a matter like this, and I have thought that on the Second Reading the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon. I should like to direct the attention of the House to what has been done in France with regard to town planning. A law was passed there as recently as March last, making it compulsory in every town with a population of 10,000 and upwards to go in for town-planning schemes, to make new roads, and to determine the extent and disposition of public gardens, playing-fields, parks, open spaces, and so on. The provision also applies to holiday and seacoast resorts, health resorts, and other places in which the population is increased by 50 per cent. or more at certain periods of the year. In order to further encourage towns to adopt this Act, and to make the most of it, the French law provides that the whole coat of these plans shall be borne by a central authority. Now, reference has already been made by hon. Members to the ugliness of Irish houses and Irish towns. Hon. Members who know Ireland will recognise that many of their finest seaside resorts are made exceedingly ugly and have become eyesores, owing to the houses having been built in a straggling manner by any investor in a piece of land at his own caprice and in all varieties of style. An opportunity is given by the introduction of this Bill, which should be seized upon in order that we may prevent this thing going any further, and that, if possible, some coherent scheme may be adopted for all seaside resorts and all cities, so that the mistakes of the past may be avoided in the future, and the development of our towns may proceed on the most business-like and artistic style.
I need not say that we on these benches join in the appeal that has been made by the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), that Dublin and Belfast should be included in the scope of this Bill. With regard to Dublin, there is only one argument which need be put forward, and that is the fact that the rates are 16s. 6½d. in the £, and how a board of directors of a modern banking
company could accept the security of the municipal body in view of those high rates, is almost a mystery to me. I must say that several Irish banks were approached in order to ascertain how they would view applications from municipal bodies for loans, and they one and all declared that it was a class of business they would not engage in, and that it was not really such a commercial enterprise as should be put before a modern bank. Unless the Treasury and the Chief Secretary can see their way to come to the assistance of the great municipalities of Dublin and Belfast I am afraid that the housing scheme will prove a dead letter. I am certain that neither the Local Government Board nor the right hon. Gentleman want to be forced by the provisions of this Act to assume the functions of the Dublin Corporation with regard to this question of housing.

Captain DIXON: I welcome this Bill as one of the greatest Bills ever brought in for Ireland in our time. I need not refer to the benefit it will bring to individuals in Ireland. That has been painted in most eloquent colours by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin). This Bill will add to the comfort, happiness and prosperity of everyone in Ireland. It will do more; in advancing money to carry out its provisions, England will perhaps be offered one of the finest investments which she ever made. I go so far as to say that England would be well edvised, purely as a business investment to give the poorer parts of Dublin and Belfast 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 pounds absolutely free. I am satisfied that if the antecedents of the men who have committed crimes in Ireland during the past twenty years were looked into, it would be found that they had been born in wretched slums. This Bill is intended to do away with those slums, and thereby to breed a race of men who will have a sense of responsibility to the State. But there is one criticism I would like to make, and it is on the financial side of the Bill. We are entering into enormous engagements, for I believe the actual amount of money required at the present moment to carry out housing schemes in Ireland is £40,000,000. For the City of Belfast alone, £5,000,000 is required according to the finance of this Bill. Dublin and Belfast are to raise the money they require locally through the banks. Curiously enough the
actual bank balances now in Belfast amount to £5,000,000, and if this money is advanced by the bankers, not a single farthing will be left free in Belfast for the ordinary calls of trade. I do not think this Bill will be the success we hope it will be unless the Treasury come forward and advance the money—or at any rate secure it.
I would like to put forward an idea for the consideration of my right hon. Friend, and it is this. At the present moment there are immense sums of money in Ireland uninvested. The money has been made by the farmers and small traders who have been led to believe that it is wrong to invest anything in British securities. But I am satisfied that if these men could be convinced that the money they put into a loan for this housing purpose would be spent on Irish houses, and used for Ireland only, they would, instead of allowing their money to lie idle in the bank, be glad to invest it for this purpose. I throw that suggestion out, because there is an immense amount of money in Ireland which can be used for Ireland, if the people can only be convinced that it will be used for Ireland and Ireland only. There is another point with regard to town planning. Not only should the local authorities build houses, but they should not cover open spaces. They should preserve all possible and convert them into small parks. Money should certainly be advanced for that purpose. In my own Constituency—an immense labour district in close proximity to Harland and Wolff's, the land is being very rapidly built over. But there are some small spaces and corners left, and I think every one of these should be seized upon now, and made into a small park or garden. Not only do the working classes need good houses, but they want open air spaces for their children. It is absolutely deplorable, when one gets into the slum parts of our cities—and Belfast is not perhaps so bad as many other cities—to see some of the places where children live—children who, it may be, till they are ten or twelve years of age, never see a blade of grass. I would like to press upon my right hon. Friend that it is essential for the Treasury to advance money if this Bill is to be a success, and if it is to be that, as it will, it will prove a magnificent investment for English capital.

6.0. P.M.

Lieutenant-Colonel ALLEN: I am very glad to have this opportunity, the first I have had of addressing this House, of speaking on the subject of providing houses for the working classes. I have no doubt whatever, when some of us speak here on the question of the working classes, there is a feeling in some minds that we are seeking to make sure of the working-class vote in our own Constituencies. But I have been connected very intimately with the working classes all my life. I thought I knew them. I have got to know them better during the past five years. I have spent three and a half years with them in France and Belgium, and I yield to no man in my appreciation of the merits of the working man, and of what he deserves at the hands of this nation. When this House has done everything it considers it ought to do and it thinks that it has dealt generously with the working man, I feel inclined to say that they have not done half they ought to for the heroes whom we left in the countries beyond. The provision of houses for the working classes is one of the most certain of temperance reforms that could possibly be imagined or devised. It has been said that these homes are not attractive and that provision is made for outside attractions. Here we are given an opportunity to provide some counter-attraction to the public-house in the home. I believe that if temperance reformers for the past thirty years had spent all their life and energies in providing some counter-attraction to the public-house, this country would not be in the state it is in to-day on the drink question. Here is the opportunity for the Government of the United Kingdom. I am glad that the opportunity is being taken now to provide homes in which it will be possible for the people to live in peace and comfort.
There are one or two points in connection with the Bill to which I should like to refer. A good deal has been said about the finance of the measure. I hope that the Government will deal generously with us on this occasion. I have no doubt that some hon. Members wonder what is the matter when we are having an Irish Debate without breaking each others heads. We are all agreed on this subject, and for the purpose of marking their appreciation of the common sense of Irishmen on all sides on this question the Government ought to make it a red-letter day in the history of Ireland by coming out handsomely and
generously in the matter of the finance of this Bill. It is difficult to understand the proposal in Clause 5, Sub-section (1), which says:
The Board may, if the scheme is carried out within such period as may be specified by the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, pay, or undertake to pay, to the local authority, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such part of the loss as may be determined to be so payable under regulations made by the Board.
What we want to try to do in Committee, and what I hope we shall succeed in doing, is to place it beyond question how this money will be supplied. The possibility of a loss is being discussed by the councils. Some of the councils will want to know about the finance. Some of the urban councils in the past have borrowed money for this purpose. I am not referring to such places as Belfast or Dublin, but to some of the smaller urban areas. Some of those areas, which I know very well, have taken the matter in hand, but it has been at such a cost that the rents of the houses received from the people who occupy them do not cover the cost of the outlayor the interest thereon. They will be asking themselves the question, "How are we to be financed? Is it to be a burden on the rates in the future, as it is at present in regard to the houses we have already built?" It is only reasonable that the finance of the Bill should be made perfectly plain to these urban councils. Another point not yet touched upon which ought to be considered by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, is that there are some urban councils who have provided their areas with an excellent water supply up to a certain point. Everyone of us will agree that the water supply of the houses we propose building under this scheme is most essential. It is necessary that everything that can be done should be done thoroughly and in an up-to-date fashion. For the sake of the health of the people who may occupy these houses that is absolutely necessary. But the water supplies that were laid on at considerable cost twenty-five or thirty years ago by certain urban areas are not sufficiently powerful at the present moment to supply an additional quantity of water to their particular areas. If they undertake the burden, as they must do under this Bill, of increasing the number of houses in that area, and consequently of increasing the supply of water which would be necessary for those houses, the result will be that the water
supply will be taxed beyond its utmost limit. Any urban council with business ideas and characteristics, and which holds that anything done under this Bill ought to be done well, in the first place, will ask, "What about the water supply for these houses? We are at the utmost limit at the present moment, and if we add 300, 400, or 500 houses, our water supply will break down." I know of one particular case myself where there is an ample reservoir in the largest lake in the United Kingdom. But they must have a pumping station. They placed a reservoir on the highest point of the district. The first thing that an urban council will ask itself is, "What about the additional supply of water? What about the additional power required?" In other words, what about the expenditure on the additional pumping machinery that will be necessary for that supply? When the Government come to the consideration of the finance of this Bill they will have to be careful that expenditure on houses is not the only thing to be borne in mind, but also the sanitary conditions of the houses and, consequent upon that, the water supply. If it is necessary for any urban area to provide additional pumping machinery for its supply of water to these houses, it is only fair and reasonable to include such outlay in the cost of the erection of these houses. I hope the Government will look into that question when they come to consider the financial aspect of the Bill.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I would like to refer. I dare say that some hon. Members noticed two questions in to-day's Question Paper, both of which had reference to floods—one to the flooding of mines and the other the serious and dangerous floods which have recently taken place in a part of Hackney owing to the overflow of the River Lea, causing many premises to become unfit for human habitation. What was the reply? That some engineers were at work at this moment on the overflowing of that river, and the consequent loss of property and to the people who inhabited those houses. In my Constituency we have the River Bann. For upwards of fifty or sixty years we have been agitating and trying to get the Government to assist us to drain the flooded areas caused by the overflowing of its banks by the Bann, one result of which, apart from the loss to cereals and wheat crops, is the serious deterioration in the health of the people who live in that district When some of the Debates took
place in the House on the food question I thought of between 30,000 and 40,000 acres of land that were constantly being flooded there because of the rising of the River Bann in the autumn and the smallness of the expenditure that would have been necessary to put the matter right, and I wondered when the attention of the Government and those resposible would be turned to that point. My object in raising this point at this time is because of the houses that are situated in this area. I was very much disappointed when I saw in the paper the other day that a deputation desired to wait upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland concerning the flooding of these 40,000 acres by the River Bann, and the report stated that he refused to see the deputation. I hope it is not true. I would like the House to compare the way in which the question has been met in England with regard to the flooding of these houses on this river with the way in which the Government have met it in Ireland. I hope that the Chief Secretary will put his mind to this question also. Sometimes in this House we begin at the wrong end of the stick. I have no doubt whatever that if the vast sums of money which have been spent on sanatoria for the cure of consumption had been spent on new houses for the working men, very much less money might have been spent on the sanatoria themselves. The money has been spent on these large buildings to try to cure those who have come from the squalidness and the wretchedness of these houses. Spend the money in pulling down these houses and putting up new ones for them, and you will do good work. I hope with all my heart that this measure, which I am glad to say has the blessing, for once, of every Member from Ireland who is in the House at present, will be passed. I have no doubt whatever that the House generally sympathises with this Bill, and I believe it will have an easy passage. Again I would like to impress upon the Chief Secretary the necessity of pressing the Treasury to act generously for once with Ireland on this question, and I am perfectly certain that if he does so he will receive the thanks of a grateful nation.

Captain REDMOND: Perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down upon the extremely patriotic and, if I may say so, common-sense utterance which we have heard from him for the first time in this House. I feel sure that it will not
be the last, and I hope that on every other occasion when he addresses the House he will be in consonance with the party to which I belong as much as he is on the present occasion. I do not desire at all to enter upon grounds already traversed by hon. Members from all parts of Ireland I am as much in agreement with the general principle of this Bill, and as ardent a supporter of the principle of proper and immediate amelioration for the working classes in regard to better housing in Ireland, as is any other Irish Member, and representing, as I do, an urban constituency which requires as much attention in this regard as any other portion of my country, I am naturally most anxious and desirous that this Bill should be made as good and as profitable a Bill for Ireland as possible, and that it should be expedited in every possible way to the Statute Book. But there are one or two matters upon which I wish to make a more or less personal appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I want to place before him, as I feel sure has already been placed before him by the local authorities concerned, the case of local councils or authorities who during the course of the War have themselves made provision for the housing of the working classes in their districts. This Bill is mainly to enable local authorities to recoup any annual loss which they shall undergo by reason of the increased cost of building materials, and of labour, and of every other means of erecting dwelling-houses for the working classes. As far as I am aware, there are only four local authorities in Ireland who, from the commencement of the War till the present time, have done anything in that regard, one of them being the city of Waterford, which I represent, and the appeal that I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman is to ask him if he cannot see his way to make this Bill and this scheme retrospective as from the commencement of the War, in order not to penalise those local authorities who have fulfilled their duty and their obligation, and not only done so, but done so at increasing cost year by year since the War commenced? As he is probably aware, these schemes were approved of at the commencement of the War. The loans were made, and the burden was taken by the local ratepayers on their own shoulders. What is the result now? It is that if this Bill is not made retros-
pective in their regard, which I can hardly believe, as it is really a matter of such small consequence, these very councils and local authorities, including the Waterford Corporation, will be in a worse position to-day than they would have been if they had not advanced an inch along the path of progress, but had simply waited for something to turn up and had then come along with the rest of the country to take advantage of the present housing scheme I ask the Chief Secretary, and I cannot see how he can disagree, if that is fair? After all, the amount required to meet these cases is very small, and if the Treasury will not be prepared to advance that amount now, I say that they are behaving in a very niggardly fashion, as of course they have nearly always done in regard to Ireland, and in a fashion which shows them up, because if these local authorities had not taken the step that they did, the Treasury would not have to fork out under the Chief Secretary's scheme a considerable amount more than even I am asking them to do now. This Bill is, boiled down, nothing but a recognition that the proper housing of the Irish people is a State obligation which no longer should rest upon the shoulders of the local people only, and, that being so, I feel confident that if the Chief Secretary will investigate these cases he will come to the conclusion that he will bring all his powerful influence at any rate—and I hope that he has got some—upon the British Treasury to assist these enterprising authorities to the same extent as they are now going to assist authorities who for one reason or another have done nothing in the meanwhile.
As regards the general finance of the Bill, I must say that I think, agreeing this time with the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), that we should have been left in Ireland in precisely the same position as was mapped out for England. Why not let us strike a 1d. in the £ in Ireland, and let the British Treasury come along and supply the deficit? They have done that in England, and, for one reason or another—I perhaps need not mention why—they say this rule shall apply to England, but where Ireland is concerned the British Treasury must close its fist. Think of what the British Treasury is getting out of Ireland. Many hon. Members in this House remember the time of the passage of the Home Rule Act,
when the revenue in Ireland was actually less than the expenditure in that country. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who fought that Bill Clause by Clause, will certainly recollect that provision was actually made, and is in existence still in the Home Rule Act for the time when the revenue in Ireland would be greater than the expenditure, that not being so only a few years ago. What about the state of affairs to-day? The revenue in Ireland, according to your own most up-to-date statistics, is now at least twice as great as the expenditure of all sorts, kinds, and descriptions in that country.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is the result of good government and the prosperity of the country.

Captain REDMOND: I am not going to debate that question with him now. It may be the result of war, if that is what he calls good government. But, at any rate, be it the result of what it may, that is neither here nor there. The fact is that the revenue derived from Ireland now is more than twice the expenditure, and that being so, I do not see why the Treasury in this case should not treat Ireland fairly. In this case all Irish Members are agreed. Not a single Member returned from Ireland is not in favour of a broad, wide, generous, and immediate Grant from the Treasury for Irish housing, and in this instance more than in any other, where the whole Irish representation in this House is agreed, the British Treasury again closes the door and will not treat Ireland in the same way as it is treating this country. There is a small point which should perhaps really be raised in Committee, but as the Chief Secretary is here I would like to mention it. Representations have been made to me from the Irish Institute of Architects and others that some of the schemes in the past have not been under the supervision of proper architects, and I hope that when the Committee stage arises the right hon. Gentleman will see that provision is made that proper architects, and I hope Irish architects, are brought in to secure proper sanitation and healthy dwelling houses for the working classes. This, undoubtedly, is a great reform for the whole country. Bills have been introduced for every part of the United Kingdom, but there is no part of the United Kingdom which requires the Bill as much as Ireland. There is not an urban area in Ireland at the present time
which is not a disgrace to a modern community such as Ireland should be. I am not going to apportion the blame, but the fact remains, and we are here to remedy the state of affairs, and I hope, therefore, that I shall have the support of the Chief Secretary and also of hon. Members from the North of Ireland in the appeal that I have made to him in regard to these special cases that I have mentioned.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: I thoroughly endorse what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Redmond) has said in asking for the sympathetic consideration of the Government in reference to those districts in Ireland which took the plucky course at the outset of the War of starting these housing schemes. Tennyson said, "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." They loved their people so much that they started these projects, and I am sure that at a later stage the Government will give sympathetic consideration to that expenditure. I would also like to endorse what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said in regard to architects. It is a most important thing to have good architects. With the exception of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech the remarks that have been addressed to the House have been from Ulster. You have been long accustomed to hear the voice of Ulster in this House and you probably regard it as the representative voice of Ireland, but I happen to represent the metropolis of the country. I am the only Member representing Dublin in this House, and speaking from that point of view, as a Dublin man who is thoroughly conversant with all the labour conditions and other conditions that prevail in that city, I am only sorry that the Labour Members are not here in greater numbers to hear of the shocking conditions that prevail in Dublin. It is only those who know of the shocking conditions under which the working men in Dublin live—I will not say live, but barely exist—who can realise the crying necessity there is for this great measure. These tenement houses in Dublin are old houses which have long since fallen into decay. Many of them are sewage-sodden andrat-eaten, and the people live under the most terrible conditions. I know of a man who sat up for three nights to beat off the rats while his wife was lying ill. I know of a woman who lived high up in one of these tenement houses, a fine, sturdy woman, with her wash-tub in front of her, and she was
asked how she managed, owing to the state of the roof, to deal with the wet which came through the roof in copious quantities. She replied, "If you look at the skirting you will see that I pass it on to my neighbours." As regards the sanitary conditions, they are non-existent. In these high houses they have to carry all their water up by hand. Everything that is undesirable exists in the most frightful condition in these houses, and I impress upon this House with all the earnestness I can the importance of proceeding with this housing scheme at the earliest moment. A few weeks ago, in relation to the Medical Treatment of Children Bill, I said that such was the shocking condition of these houses that people who had to traverse the streets in which they were situated took to the middle of the road rather than the footpath. Those who know Dublin know that that is so.
I wish we had the good fortune to have two or three more citizens such as we have in Dublin in the family of an hon. and gallant Member of this House—a gentleman who has done a monumental work for that city. Any hon. Members who pay a visit to Dublin and see the splendid play centre he has provided for that city and see what one man has done, would certainly be astonished. We very often hear in this House, and elsewhere, about the working man that he drinks too much. All I can say is that if Members of this House lived under the same conditions as the working men in Dublin they would drink too much. I know I should drink too much if I lived under similar conditions. Those of us who know the psychology of the people of Ireland know that it is very largely their social instincts and the extraordinary environment in which they find themselves that accounts for the excessive drinking that exists. During the War I have been assisting a good deal in recruiting in connection with one very famous regiment, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers. These men have been largely reared under the conditions I have mentioned. The wonder is that they ever lived to take their part in the War. It is due to the fact of the survival of the fittest. If they were not, as they are, super-men, they would never have lived through their surroundings to take their part in the War. If I have the good fortune to be on the Committee which deals with this Bill, I shall reserve some of my criticism for that stage, but I would like to say now that I am not looking a gift
horse in the mouth. I welcome this Bill. I think it is a splendid attempt on the part of the Government to grapple with a serious difficulty. I wish it God speed, and I will not make any attempt to embarrass the Government in regard to it.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I do not quite agree with the hon. Member that we must not look this gift horse in the mouth. I am not at all certain that we shall not find that it will be a very costly gift horse. I have listened to the whole of the Debate and I am in a complete fog as to the financial conditions. The Chief Secretary told us definitely that no loss will be thrown on the rates.

Mr. MACPHERSON: If ordinary care is taken.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I am not certain, however much care is taken, that it will be possible to prevent a considerable charge being thrown upon the rates unless rents are raised to a point far higher than any present charge under the Labourers Acts in Ireland. If the rents do not produce at least half the loan charges, a loss will be thrown on the rates. The last return, which was issued in 1915, under the Labourers Cottages (Ireland) Act, shows that the total amount which had to be raised annually in repayment of the loans was £315,000, and of that only £128,000 was raised as rent. In other words, four years ago the rent received from labourers' cottages in Ireland did not amount to even half the loan charges. That was under conditions of cheaper money and far cheaper buildings, and it does seem to me that under present conditions it is quite certain there will be a very heavy loss thrown on the rates. The whole of the financial proposals are so very uncertain at present that I hope the Government will be able to give us some more definite information during this Debate. It is not only in this case, but always in connection with such proposals as this, that we have very little opportunity of discussing the financial bearings of the proposals brought before us. Clause 5 of this Bill says that the proposals are to be framed with the approval of the Treasury, but there is no provision whatever for laying these financial proposals before the House.
It would, I think, help hon. Members very much if the representative of the Government who is going to reply on this
Debate would give us more definite information and would tell us how, on the actual level of rent which they expect can be charged in Ireland, the figures will work out. In the original schemes as sent round to the local authorities in Ireland I understand it was said that half of the loss would be borne by the Imperial Exchequer for seven years, and that after that time there would be reconsideration of the whole matter. Perhaps we may be informed whether that limitation is still in force in these new proposals. The effect on the ratepayers of this scheme must obviously depend on the length of the loans which will be provided from Imperial credit, and the rate which is to be charged. It is very important that we should be given that information while the Bill is still before the House, otherwise what will happen will be that we shall not get any opportunity for discussing it, because the Bill will go to Committee, and one cannot discuss financial proposals there. The only form in which it will come before this House will be in the Financial Resolution. In the case of the British Housing Bill, I understand it was not within the Rules of Order to discuss the financial arrangements under the Financial Resolution. The total amount only could be discussed, and it was only possible to put in a limit. In view of the large sums which may be involved, I think we ought to have all the facts before us while we are still in a position to discuss them.
The original proposal certainly seemed likely to break down owing to the impossibility of the local authorities being able to raise money on satisfactory terms, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on his persuasive powers with the Treasury which have induced them to improve upon the original suggestion. He now wishes to limit the necessity for raising money locally to the cases of Dublin and Belfast. What kind of rate will Dublin have to pay for its money under its present condition with its local taxation at 16s. 11d. in the £? How can she get money on such economical terms as will enable her to compete in cheapness of houses with other parts of Ireland? Obviously, it will be unsatisfactory if Dublin or Belfast have to face a larger burden on their housing and a larger difference between the rent which they can collect and the economical rent which would pay for the loan charges, and if, consequently, they are in a worse con-
dition in that respect than the rest of Ireland. For that reason alone, in order to allow the financial conditions to be uniform throughout the whole country, there is a very strong case for the Chief Secretary to put before the Treasury to allow the whole of this new money which is required for housing to be found out of Imperial sources. As to the machinery of the Bill, if there is any criticism I think it will be that it follows the British model rather too closely. There would appear to be two considerable differences in the position in Ireland compared with the position which the English Bill is framed to meet. First of all, there is financial difference. It is said that no loss need be thrown on the Irish rates. If that is so, the local authorities will really have no incentive to economise. In the machinery of the Bill that which is suitable to England, where the local authority has an incentive, is not by any means necessarily suitable to Ireland, where apparently the financial responsibility is different. If there is to be no loss put on the rates, I am afraid you will find there will be considerable temptation to prodigality. There was a case before the Dublin Corporation a few weeks ago, a report of which I saw in the "Irish Times," in regard to the question of employing direct labour on these houses. At that time I believe it was understood that no cost would be thrown on the rates. Obviously, under those conditions, it is likely that strong pressure will be put on the local representative to employ direct labour and to ignore economical considerations in view of the fact that the burden will not be thrown upon the ratepayers whom they represent.
In Ireland the problem is much more exclusively an urban problem than a rural problem. That means that the houses are to be erected far more closely together and therefore more easily under the control of a central authority. Both from the administrative and financial point of view that strengthens the case for a central body of ad hoc Commissioners to carry out this work, as has been already suggested in this Debate. I would further suggest that these Commissioners should be helped by local advisory councils representing each of the four provinces with possibly an advisory council representing Dublin and Belfast as well. I am quite certain that local authorities will not be able to tackle this matter themselves without very much more help than the Local Government
Board, without such special housing Commissioners, will be in a position to give them. The right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) referred to the incorporation in this Bill of certain provisions of the 1909 Housing and Town Planning Act. Those provisions are not satisfactory. The town planning which was expected under the 1909 Act has not materialised, and in Great Britain, where certainly far more attention has been paid to the matter than has ever been in Ireland, only ten town planning schemes have been produced during the last ten years. Therefore there is a strong case for making town planning powers of local authorities compulsory, and to incorporate in this Bill merely the feeble ineffective powers contained in the 1909 British Act will give very little advantage to Ireland.
If we do not have some really effective town planning powers there is great danger that new slums will be built—long rows of houses without cross streets or open spaces. Besides that, town planning gives great economy. In London alone, £15,000,000 has been spent by the authorities on London street improvements, due to the necessity of street widening, which might have been avoided by a rational system of foresight in town planning in the first instance. We have had so many housing Bills in the past, both in Ireland and in England, great in promise and disappointing in results, that I think that this Bill will have to be strengthened if we are really to get what is expected. Housing and town planning work is, in its nature, very difficult and troublesome, and calls for much initiative and foresight. The actual planning, the architectural side of the work, is very difficult, calling for special experience and qualifications in those who are responsible for it, if full advantage is to be taken of the site. The local authority in many cases have very little experience of any save the poorest class of labourers' cottages and have not got the necessary technical knowledge to enable them to undertake this work. For this reason I do hope that the Chief Secretary will see his way to accept a proposal to set up a strong body of housing Commissioners working through advisory provincial councils, and will also make town planning compulsory in order to strengthen the framework of the Bill, and enable it to support that very heavy strain which will inevitably have to be thrown upon it

Mr. LYNN: As representing a large industrial constituency I would like to join in congratulating the Chief Secretary on the speech which he has delivered this afternoon. So far as lucidity, grace and literary style are concerned, it leaves nothing to be desired, in fact, I prefer the speech very much to the Bill itself, but, unfortunately, it is the Bill and not the speech which we have to consider. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to realise that, so far as we on these benches are concerned, we have no desire to indulge in captious criticism. We want to help him to make the best possible scheme we can. In Belfast this problem has been thrust upon us by the action of a recent Government. In 1909–10, when the land Clauses of the Finance Act were passed, we had in the city of Belfast 5,000 vacant houses. At the present moment we have only got 164. I mention that not for the purpose of reviving an old controversy, but simply in order to point out to the Chief Secretary that the Government is under an obligation in regard to this matter. There is no doubt whatever that the policy then initiated prevented house-building going on in Belfast. If this rare and refreshing fruit had not been offered to us, then, so far as the Members for Belfast are concerned, we should not be here to ask help from the Treasury or anyone else, because we should have had quite as many houses as we needed. Though the population of Belfast increased much more quickly than the population of any other city in the United Kingdom, we had been enabled to keep pace with the growth of population in the way of providing houses, and we could have maintained this position if it had not been for the legislation to which I have just referred. Therefore I urge upon the Chief Secretary that he should be generous in dealing with us in this matter.
I look upon this Bill not as a final settlement of the building question, but as a temporary expedient which is absolutely necessary in order to get rid of the results produced by the folly of the past. To my mind, the weak point under this Bill is that so much of the work has got to be done under local bodies. I have watched local bodies carefully for many years. Even the best of them cannot do this class of work so well as the private individual. Therefore, I think that my right hon. Friend would be well advised if he would give serious attention to the encourage-
ment of private enterprise. Of course, it is absolutely necessary that public bodies should step into the breach at the moment, but what my right hon. Friend should aim at is getting back to normal conditions, when this work will be done, not by public bodies, who are always slower and much more costly, but by private enterprise. I am glad that in the course of his speech he was sympathetic with regard to the Small Dwellings Act. Belfast is one of those places where it has been put into operation for some years, and neither the municipality nor the State has lost a single penny by reason of it. On the contrary, it has accomplished splendid results, and it would be a great advantage if the Small Dwellings Act were extended, so that it would meet the exigencies of the present time. Under that Act you can only get money from the Government for a house valued up to £400. The Chief Secretary has agreed to urge that the limit should be raised from £400 to £800. I think that that is not quite enough. I have gone into the question very carefully, and have been told by those who are best able to give an opinion on the subject that a house which could have been built before the War for £400 will cost to-day at least £1,000. If that be so, my right hon. Friend would be well advised to induce the Treasury to increase the limit from £800 to £1,000. I know his difficulty with the Treasury, because it is a body which is often penny wise and pound foolish. The wisest course in this case would be to encourage private individuals to build. Indeed, under the present scheme, it would be wiser for them, because under the Bill as it stands the State must lose a considerable amount on that part which is to be undertaken by public bodies, whereas under the Small Dwellings Act the State would lose practically nothing except whatever concession would be made by Order in Council as defined in Section 14 of the Bill. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the advisability of extending as far as possible the provisions of the Small Dwellings Act.
There is another point which has not been touched upon by any speaker. When municipalities build houses they should be at liberty to sell these houses to the tenants on favourable terms. I hope that he will take that point into consideration. I have listened with great care to all the discussion on the financial part of the Bill. I am sorry the Government cannot see its way to lend money at pre-war rates of in-
terest, rather than make what is in reality a subsidy. I do not know that it would not in the end be simpler and cheaper to lend money at a reduced rate of interest rather than make the terms which they are going to make, but I do hope that the scheme which my right hon. Friend will offer will be one that will facilitate house building. There is one matter which may do much harm. At the end of seven years the State subsidy may be cut down. I am afraid, from the recent statement issued by the Local Government Board, that it will be cut down. If that idea becomes prevalent, it will undoubtedly prevent local bodies from entering on large schemes of house building. I have discussed the question of raising money for building houses with a great many directors of banks, and I have discovered that they have no great love for raising money for this purpose. For one thing, they say that it would be investing their money too long. They prefer to have their money in circulation. I am very much afraid that, so far as the Corporations of Belfast and Dublin are concerned, there will be considerable difficulty in raising this money. I hope that the Chief Secretary will press on the Treasury the advantage of lending this money at a reasonable rate of interest.
We are anxious that the Chief Secretary should establish a generous and sufficient scheme of housing. He has got an excellent chance now. I am sure that if he does carry through, as he hopes to do, a first-class scheme, he will have the gratitude of every man and woman in Ireland. One of his most distinguished predecessors, a Gentleman who, fortunately, is still a Member of this House, was, when he came to Ireland, probably the best abused man in the country, but, by undertaking work of social reform, while at the same time maintaining the law, he left Ireland one of the most respected Chief Secretaries who had ever been in the country. I refer, of course, to the distinguished Foreign Secretary (Mr. Balfour). I do hope that future generations will be able to say that the present Chief Secretary also earned the gratitude of the Irish people, and that he is worthy of being given a high place amongst the highest holders of the office which he has the honour to hold at the present time.

7.0. P.M.

Mr. HARBISON: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate after all the speeches we have heard on this Bill. I am
an Ulster Member, and I am bound to say that we Ulster men are, for once, voicing the feelings of all Ireland. We are all united to-day, and I only hope this unity will be the forerunner of further union later on. I would not have intervened, but that there was one point which I think was only slightly touched upon by a previous speaker, and that was with regard to the construction of these houses. I think the principle should be laid down in this Bill in regard to the construction of these houses, that there should not be in any house less than three sleeping rooms. I know of a case in point, in a certain district in my Constituency, where a scheme has been put through in which there are only two bedrooms. That is a state of affairs which should not be allowed. The object of this measure is to make the life of the people sweeter and better, and, if I may say so, more Christian. And I think that object will not be gained unless in every artisan and labourer's dwelling in the country at least three rooms for sleeping are provided. Another point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Lieutenant-Colonel Allen), to whose speech I listened with the highest admiration. We hope we shall often hear him in this House, and if his first speech is anything of a sample of what we shall hear later on, then the oftener we hear him the better the House will be pleased. The point he raised was with regard to the improvement and sanitation of a lot of the houses already built in some of the industrial communities. If the hon. and gallant Member were here I hope he would forgive me for mentioning the fact that in a very important industrial part of his own constituency, in the town of Portadown—I have very often seen it with my own eyes—there are hundreds of these houses, already built, which are flooded to their very doors by the overflowing of the river for a great many months of the year. A clause should be inserted in this Bill to meet a case like that, for I think it is as necessary to make existing houses sanitary as to build new houses. So far as I can see, when this Bill is whipped into shape, and if the financial provisions—which as far as I am concerned I do not understand yet, but we shall get the memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman has promised—are anything at all feasible, we shall have a measure that will certainly go a long way to relieve the crying evils in all the big industrial centres
of the North. There is just one point which was raised by a hon. Gentleman opposite, and which applies to cities and boroughs in urban districts. There are in the North of Ireland, and I suppose there are some in the South of Ireland also, a number of small towns, bigger than villages but not large enough to be towns, under the Towns Improvements Acts. Something should be done for these industrial centres, especially in the county of Antrim and in my own county of Tyrone. There are a number of small towns, where hundreds and hundreds of workers are without suitable dwellings, and I think this Bill should be so constructed as to provide for these industrial areas. I suggest that when the Bill goes into Committee an attempt should be made to insert a Clause to deal with these areas. If this is done then, I think, notwithstanding that this is a foreign Parliament to Ireland, that we shall have done one good day's work for Ireland.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): I think my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is to be congratulated on the way the Bill has been received. I know that during the period in which he has held his office he has been devoting himself with great energy to the perfecting of this Bill. He has consulted a great many authorities and people, and has been working with the Local Government Board in fashioning a measure which, at any rate, as far as the expressions of opinion from all sides of the House this evening go, has been received with universal approbation, and, I hope, will speedily become an Act. I wish to deal very shortly with the very valuable criticisms made from all sides of the House in relation to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman who represents Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) at the beginning of his speech made observations which have been reiterated from all sides of the House. He spoke of the great necessity of having sites well chosen; of having the small dwellings and houses for the artisan made as beautiful as possible; that they should have the best accommodation, open air about them, and playgrounds for the children; and the sanitation thoroughly up to date. I think that was the burden of the speeches of almost every hon. Member on both sides of the House this afternoon. I can assure the House and my hon. Friends that this matter has been most fully
attended to already. There has been a most interesting Memorandum issued by the Irish Local Government Board through the Housing Department, which has been sent round to all the local authorities in Ireland, and which I hope my hon. Friends will get into their hands before the Committee stage. There they will see how every one of the very valuable suggestions that have been made this afternoon have been already embodied in the directions given to the local authorities who are to undertake this great and important duty. The Memorandum begins by dealing with the selection of suitable sites which, as the Committee says, demands great judgment and skill. They say that to secure satisfactory results they must have two prevailing ideas dealing with the houses and the situation. They say,
Hitherto a most mistaken policy has been common of crowding thirty or forty families on an acre of land with no reasonable provision of spaces on which children can develop themselves by playing in a healthy and satisfactory way.
They add,
No rigid rules are possible in respect to the sites—
They all differ. I hope that we may have no more of these long, unlovely streets which have been referred to so often in this Debate—
Most of the houses should be built on large sites, on which there is room for development in a way which will make each of the new houses satisfactory, and the effect of the whole scheme beneficial, instead of detrimental, to the adjoining areas. The main essential is to secure ample space and to lay it out under the best expert advice obtainable.
So that your streets may be larger, and that once you have acquired your site there will be a chance for further developments. They suggest that there should be:
An ample width between the building lines of the houses of at least seventy feet. Garden spaces should be provided in front of the houses; wide spaces on main roads between the front garden fences.
So that, instead of having brick walls to look on, you would have as far as possible pretty hedges, and small areas planted with trees and shrubs. Every one of these things are touched on in the Report also. All existing trees should be carefully preserved. Then as to the grouping of the houses. They say there should be as much variety as possible, so as to avoid the dead monotony which has been referred to, and which is so deadly—
A good architectural effect can be most satisfactorily secured, not by expensive ornamental treatment or great variations in the design of the houses, but by grouping them skillfully so
as to avoid the monotony of long, unbroken building lines. Corner sites should be treated with special care so that blank gable walls may not be prominent features.
All these things have been gone into most carefully in the directions sent round to the local authorities. Then, with regard to the internal character of these houses, they say:
It is most important that the internal plan of each house should be carefully adapted to its site. The living room and principal bedrooms should have the sunniest aspect,
and so on.
The average number of houses to the acre should not exceed twelve, and on no single acre should the number exceed twenty. The latter density will only be permissible when, in addition to moderate-sized gardens attached to each house, permanent open spaces for allotments or recreation grounds are provided within the area which is being dealt with by a scheme.
They also provide that
In all large schemes land should be set aside, unless sufficient provision already exists in the immediate vicinity, for the future erection of shops and public buildings.
With regard to minimum accommodation, it is suggested that
The minimum accommodation that should be provided in a new house is a living room, scullery and two bedrooms.
There are a great many houses where a family will not want more than two bedrooms, but that is the minimum.

Mr. HARBISON: There is the scheme I mentioned, which has only two bedrooms. Will the right hon. Gentleman put into the Bill that there should be three bedrooms?

Mr. SAMUELS: We will take notice of that for the future—
but in most of the houses three bedrooms should be provided, and in large schemes a few of the houses may, with advantage, have four bedrooms. In at least 40 per cent. of the houses it is desirable that parlours should be provided.
The great benefit of that is that the lady of the house would have her own parlour, which would be private and would tend to the development of family life. It is provided that each house must have separate sanitary accommodation. There are also provisions with regard to suitable storage space for a ton of coal, a small larder ventilated to the open air, and a convenient space for a bicycle or perambulator. Then there is the provision at the end that all schemes should be prepared by competent architects. I may say that already a competition has been arranged for by my right hon. Friend, and plans have been provided, so that the housing
shall be of as good a character as the sites permit. All this, I think, shows that my right hon. Friend and the Irish Local Government Board Committee have not forgotten all those most important matters and ideas which have been suggested this evening, and which are developed here.
Now let me come to the next point, the question of finance. We can deal with finance to a much fuller extent when we come to the Financial Resolution. Before that Resolution is laid on the Table of the House we shall have out a White Paper dealing with the matter, showing the financial position

Major O'NEILL: Will there be an opportunity of discussing finance?

Mr. SAMUELS: Yes, Sir. With regard to this paint there is a very important matter which relates especially to Dublin and Belfast. At present, where the rateable value is under £200,000, the local authorities are able to borrow from the Treasury. I know my right hon. Friend has been pressing in this matter, and I hope he will be able to press satisfactorily, so that this limit may be taken away, and that towns whose valuation is over that amount will also be able to borrow from the Government. There is another very important matter, and that is that, after seven years, there should be a revision of the financial terms. I think that had better be left over. It is under close consideration at present, but I think until the financial position comes to be considered it should stand over. It has not been lost sight of, and my right hon. Friend is dealing with it. Someone has said that England has had better terms and Scotland has got better terms than Ireland. I think our Irish terms are quite as good as the others.

Mr. DEVLIN: It is only 1d. in the £ in England.

Mr. SAMUELS: But there are many other matters borne by the ratepayers here. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) mentioned a matter of great importance, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has every hope that he may be able to meet the desires of the hon. and gallant Member in this respect. I know that my right hon. Friend thinks it is a most reasonable proposition, and I can assure the hon. Member it is not being forgotten, and the best possible will be done. I desire, before I conclude, to congratulate
my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh (Major Allen), who has made his appearance here after many years, and who initiated an appeal on behalf of the working men, who have served with him so gallantly. I am sure he will assist us in the discussions on this Bill, and in our legislation generally. There is no city in the United Kingdom which deserves more any assistance it can get, and should get under this Bill. Anything that can develop and assist it, the hon. Gentleman has the right to demand, and I hope he will find his desires carried into effect by the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING [SCOTLAND—EXPENSES.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to Housing, Town Planning, and the acquisition of Small Dwellings in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—
(a) when acting in the place of local authorities in preparing and carrying out schemes under such Act;
(b) in recouping losses incurred by local authorities and county councils; and
(c) in contributing to costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts and other persons."
In submitting this Resolution, I would point out that not only is it on the Order Paper, but it has been supplemented by the circulation of a White Paper, which sets out the Estimate, and which follows very largely the White Paper presented by the President of the Local Government Board in this Committee. I should say that the Estimate issued in England takes the high-water mark for a year's building in England, before the War, I think, 1904–5, at 100,000 houses. Assuming that the shortage caused by the War was 500,000 houses, and that these may be built in the course of the next three years, that works out as follows: 100,000 houses in 1919–20, 200,000 in 1920–21,
and 200,000 in 1921–22. Taking a similar basis in Scotland, and the high-water mark in the same year as in England, the figure is 13,000, so that our shortage accordingly is 65,000. Of these we estimate that 13,000 may be built in 1919–20, 26,000 in 1920–21 and 26,000 in 1921–22, or 65,000 in the course of those three years, which is roughly one-eighth of the total for England. The expenditure annually, as it appears on the White Paper for England, is estimated to be £400,000, and in Scotland the corresponding figure would be £50,000. My right hon. Friend will see that that is the figure which we insert at the end of the first paragraph on page 2. As regards the ultimate annual charge on the Exchequer, the English White Paper states that it must be obvious that on account of the uncertainty of many of the factors, it is not practicable to do much more than to guess at those charges. That is equally true of the situation in Scotland. Estimates are given for England on the basis of deficiencies of £10, £13, and £15 per annum. On those respective estimates, which may be adopted with equal propriety in Scotland, the ultimate annual charge on the Exchequer, in relation to the Scottish programme of 65,000 houses, would be as stated on the White Paper, if we take the figure £10 a sum of £650,000, and if £13 a sum of £845,000, and if £15 a sum of £975,000. With that short, but I hope with sufficient, explanation, I beg to move.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We are very much indebted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland for the White Paper which he has laid before us, following the excellent model of the English scheme. Thus, for the first time, I think, so far as Scottish financial business is concerned, we are afforded the opportunity of discussing this very important Resolution on something approaching business lines. I would like to ask the righthon. Gentleman how many houses, having in view the shortage of labour and of material, he hopes to get constructed in the first financial year, which will be about nine months. I would point out that the shortage of houses, named by the Commission as 231,000, must be very largely added to now by reason of the factors which we discussed on the Second Reading. Those are the increase of population, notwithstanding the losses of the War, and the very much higher standard which is now necessary. I hope that the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman forms as to the results of
the first year will be a high one, because if the standard is not lofty there is not very much chance of stimulating local authorities to do their best to get near it. I would, therefore, urge my right hon. Friend to aim high, and, if he does so, he will set up an ideal to which even the most sluggish local authorities will be expected to do something to come within reasonable distance. I emphasise this point, because I was rather disappointed to note that he anticipates that the expenditure for the first year will be only £50,000. I should rather prefer that he estimated for £100,000. I do not think his estimate of what he is going to do in the first year is as high as one might have expected, because what can be accomplished will be helped by a stimulus from the Central Authority.
There is another point on this matter of expenses. I do not know when we come to deal with the Bill whether I shall be in order, but I must tell my right hon. Friend that I intend to put down an Amendment to widen the scope of the Bill, so as to give the necessary powers to improve the water supply. I have heard a great deal since the Second Reading Debate, from various parts of Scotland, of the urgent necessity of providing a water supply. There is not the slightest use putting up houses unless you have a proper and adequate water supply. I hope, therefore, that in the financial scheme, which he adumbrates in the White Paper, that he carries in his mind the point which we made on Second Reading with regard to the water supply. That can only cost money, like all these schemes, but it is a positively vital factor in carrying out the ideals and the hopes of those who supported the Bill which has now passed its Second Reading. The cost which will fall upon the local authorities is, of course, at present limited to the 1d. rate, and I fear that a heavy charge must fall upon the Exchequer, and I advise my right hon. Friend in public, though perhaps one ought to do it in private, to get going, as far as the Treasury is concerned, as soon as ever he can, for unless these matters are well formulated I have not the slightest doubt that the pressure from south of the Tweed in regard to the same problem will be so great that perhaps our interests in Scotland may be unduly neglected. I hope in these financial provisions my right hon. Friend and his Department will do their utmost to see that every possible effort is put forward by public utility societies,
including co-operative societies. I will give a concrete instance from part of my own Constituency. There is an industrial village where the lack of housing is most acute. There is no likelihood there of the shortage being met nearly as quickly as it ought to be because the authority to deal with it will no doubt be the county council of Peebleshire and the calls upon that county council will be very strong from other parts of the county. The co-operative society in that village really meets all the needs of the inhabitants. There is practically no other store of any sort or kind. It runs a farm and supplies the whole village with milk, and its operations are extraordinarily useful and varied. It is run and managed by the working people themselves, who very wisely accept any advice which is useful to them, and such a society as that, if properly backed by the Government, could take almost immediate steps, instead of waiting for the rather slow and formal methods of a great public authority. I press that as an example of an existing working unit which, if properly backed, could get to work almost at once and start the supply of these houses which are so urgently needed, not only in Scotland but, I fear, throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (c).
By the inclusion of this paragraph the Government is going directly in the face of the recommendations of the Housing Commission which sat to consider housing conditions in Scotland. In its Report it is stated:
If the present crisis is to be met in the way that Scotland, by her many sacrifices of life and treasure, had a right to expect, it cannot be met either by a reversion to the building conditions of pre-war days or by direct subsidies to employers of labour, landowners and speculative builders.
Yet we find the Government coming forward with a scheme to subsidise these people. I take the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading, in which he said:
In other words, 30 per cent. of the whole expenses will be given as a grant by the Treasury. I venture to say that these are very generous terms indeed.
He is there speaking of public utility societies. The Report is a sweeping condemnation of private enterprise and its failure in the provision of houses for the people of Scotland as well as elsewhere, a failure which the right hon. Gentleman
himself admitted in pointing to private enterprise as not being able to tackle this problem. Under this paragraph (c) any number of men can gather together to form themselves into a public utility society, and if they put up certain moneys they are to have 30 per cent. advanced to them by the Treasury in order to subsidise them in their private enterprise. The Housing Commission suggests that the State should assume full responsibility and should operate through the local authorities, and place upon them the full responsibility of seeing to the provision of building. There is no suggestion in the whole of the Report and recommendations that any public utility society should be recognised. They wish the State to be the sole sponsor of all that is going to be done, and they wish the local bodies to be the media through which the scheme is to be placed in operation. In this paragraph you are bringing once again into operation the whole of this vast speculative method of putting up buildings, with the nation's backing. The Report is a standing monument to the failure of private enterprise in building. Do not let us get back to that. If they have failed in their methods, do not let us give them Government backing to carry on the scheme, but take this part of the Resolution out. The Labour party intends to oppose any suggestion to grant subsidies to public utility societies.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I think the hon. Member is dealing with the matter from an entirely mistaken point of view. The extract he has read from the Report of the Commission undoubtedly states that private enterprise by itself would not meet these difficulties, but everyone knows why. Private enterprise in the matter of building was crushed by the Budget of 1909. [Hon. Members: "No, no!"] At all events that is my view, and it is very generally held.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Report itself specifically disagrees with that.

Sir G. YOUNGER: That may be, but that is my view of the situation, that private enterprise was crushed by these taxes and by the fact that not only the increment on land was taxable, but it was put on house property, therefore, under these circumstances, it is impossible to say that private enterprise has failed. Why should this paragraph be taken out? Is it not desirable and essential that everyone who is willing to lose money on this business should be encouraged to do so? Does the
hon. Member for a single moment imagine that any public utility society or any individual building these houses under present conditions, with a Government subsidy, is not going to lose money? Of course he is. It is perfectly impossible to build cottages or houses at present, with the Government assistance promised in the Housing Bill, without losing money. I can understand the Labour party or anyone else objecting to Government subsidies to private individuals or utility societies at the expense of the State. In this case these subsidies are given, and I suppose are intended to be given, in order to encourage people as far as possible to build houses, in addition to the local authorities, under the duties which will be imposed upon them, and no one who does it can build them without losing money on the transaction.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am sorry to hear the hon. Member state the attitude of his party toward utility societies. I look upon this method of providing housing accommodation for our people as one of the most businesslike methods which could be adopted under present circumstances. In connection with my own county council we deliberately came to the conclusion some time ago, when we had the housing proposals before us, that the best way to tackle these questions in Scotland was through publicity societies, and we formulated this scheme and sent it up to the Local Government Board. We have had in Renfrew most successful undertakings of this kind carried through, and I really think when we take into consideration the present emergency, the enormous cost of building the houses, the great cost which will be sustained by the State, the loss will be much greater than the right hon. Gentleman contemplates. In my own county we have figured out that the kind of houses required will cost between £650 and £700. The economic rent required would be about £45, and the rent which will be charged cannot exceed £20. I do not know whether the Local Government Board approve of that, but if these houses cannot be offered to the working classes at a rent of something like £20 they will not take them, but will continue where they are, and you will find the State providing houses for better class people, instead of providing houses for the people most requiring them, and I simply warn the right hon. Gentleman that the loss he has estimated will be far greater than he contemplates. There
fore, I think every possible thing should be done to encourage utility societies. It will be a far more business-like undertaking to encourage utility societies, whereby the people who are going to get the houses will contribute their share towards the cost, where local people will take part in the formation of these societies, where local money will be subscribed, and, even although the amount given by the State is a fairly substantial contribution, comparatively speaking it is a small contribution compared with the liability the State will incur through the provision of houses by local authorities. Therefore, I say that, on the lines of public utility societies, far better results will be achieved and a far more businesslike proposition put before the country than by the building of houses by local authorities. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will not be carried.

Colonel GREIG: I just want to add a word in confirmation of what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Johnstone). I happen to know the opinion that prevails in West Renfrewshire, where there is a most successful utility society carried on by working men. I will give the name privately if my hon. Friends opposite want it. There is no use advertising it too widely here. What are the communications I get from them. They say, "Why are we not to get, as a public utility society, the same sort of assistance that is going to be given to a local authority?" I told them that the terms to begin with, are very generous, and, secondly, there is the opposition of the Labour Members in the House of Commons to any subventions at all. Under those conditions I pointed out that they might have a little difficulty, but that my whole sympathies were with them and any assistance I could give would be rendered by me. Another point of view, I think, will commend itself to hon. Members opposite. I have found, in making investigations into this matter, that the great objection which the workers have to the houses being provided by their employers is a very intelligible one. They say that if a big employer of labour put up a big range of buildings—tenements as we call them inScotland—and they inhabit them, if they got the sack from their employer they would be sacked from their dwelling, and therefore they did not like their employer to have control over them, which
he would if he built these places himself. I can understand that position. It is just here that the utility society comes in. They find, in the case of a society limited in profit and separate from the employer—who can provide some of the capital if he likes, but it is open to others to do it—that there is an independent person not under his control dealing with the occupation of the building. That is the way in which a great many housing difficulties in Scotland can be solved, by public utility societies coming in where an employer might be willing to put buildings up, but where that objection prevails.
There is also this objection, I understand, from the employer's point of view. The employer, perhaps, sets to work to erect these buildings for his own people. As a business man he will run it as a separate part of his own business, and if he starts on that footing he is bound to run it as a paying concern, that is to say, exact an economic rent. It is not for me to suggest how business men should carry on their business, but I do suggest this point of view to the employer—of course, it does not meet the objection I have already mentioned—but if he does that sort of thing, then he should run the tenements for his people as part of his daily business and neglect the question whether or not it produces a profit. Then I think employers might see their way to do this sort of thing. But I did not rise to put that point of view, but mainly with regard to the other point of view, and to mention the difficulties we meet here from the members of the Labour party on the benches opposite.

Mr. ADAMSON: The last two speakers have been anxious, evidently, to ascertain what are the objections of the Labour party to public utility societies or private individuals being given certain privileges as provided for in this Bill. There are two reasons. The Labour Party does not want public utility societies or private individuals to be in the position of making profit out of public funds. The second point is this. After the debt on these buildings has been liquidated, to whom will the buildings belong? In the case of those that are put up by the local authorities they will belong to the public, but in the case of the public utility societies or private individuals, after the debt has been liquidated, they will belong to the members of those public utility societies, or to the private individuals who may get
the benefit of this Act. That is a very important difference and one that deserves the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. My hon. Friend who moved the deletion of this paragraph (c) pointed out that in the Report of the Housing Commission the Commissioners stated that they were strongly of the opinion that private enterprise had failed to provide the necessary housing accommodation for the people. But I want to remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has himself emphatically made that statement. When he was addressing a meeting on the housing question at Perth, a short time ago, he stated that private enterprise has failed, and that it was the duty of the Government to come in and provide the houses. Holding such strong views as he expressed at Perth, we were very much surprised to find this paragraph in the Expenses Resolution to-day. Not only has he made provision for utility societies and other persons, but he goes further in this Resolution than was done in the English Bill, because he also brings in "and housing trusts," which goes much further than is the case in the English Bill. Like my hon. Friend who moved the deletion of the paragraph, I want to intimate to the Secretary for Scotland that we will certainly do all we can to have this deleted. Private enterprise having failed, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Commission, it is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to come along and try to bolster up, by grants of money from public funds, a system that has entirely failed, and I hope that he will see his way to agree to the deletion of this paragraph. I cannot understand, but possibly later on he may explain, why it is he goes further than is done in the case of the English Bill. Whatever his reason may be, we strongly feel that public money ought not to be given either to a public utility society, to a housing trust, or to—as he puts it—"other persons." If these parties have failed to house the people properly, and the Government has had to step in and provide the money, then the Government ought to own the houses, either directly or through the local authorities. We hope that, either during the course of this discussion, or when we reach the Committee stage upstairs, the Secretary for Scotland will accept the Amendment and will delete this paragraph.

Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid I cannot assent to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) spoke about a clan-raid being made on the Government. I do not mind any of these clan-raids, provided they are of this character, because the clans are divided, and while my right hon. Friend invites me to delete all reference to public utility societies from this Resolution, my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian presses me, not only to retain it, but to put it into operation at the earliest possible moment. The arguments which my right hon. Friend has adduced have largely, I think, been answered in the speeches already delivered, but it is probably right and courteous that I should say a few words in answer to the arguments propounded. In the first place, I would remind my hon. and right hon. Friends that, under the English Bill, provision is made for a contribution from State funds to public utility societies, and, speaking from recollection, housing trusts as well. On the latter point I may be wrong, but I do not think I am. There is certainly provision made for dealing with public utility societies, and, so far as I recollect, my right hon. Friend made no protest whatever on the Financial Resolution which related to the English Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: Oh, yes!

Mr. MUNRO: I am sorry if I am wrong. I did not hear it, and I do not remember reading it.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I protested against it in Grand Committee.

Mr. MUNRO: I was dealing with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party said in this House.

Mr. ADAMSON: I did say what I have said.

8.0.P.M.

Mr. MUNRO: All I can say is that I think there has been no sufficient reason assigned for treating Scotland in this matter differently to England. The House as a whole decided, after hearing what had to be said, what was proper in the case of England as regards public utility societies. I for one, as I hope, a thrifty Scot, see no reason whatever why, if England is to get this money, Scotland should be deprived of a similar sum. I am really
surprised that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party is willing to sacrifice, for the benefit of England, what is tendered to his native country. On the Second Reading of this Bill I stated that the provision regarding public utility societies was made for the purpose of relieving the strain on the local authorities, and thereby relieving the strain on the ratepayers, of whom my right hon. Friend is one. It is for that purpose this provision has been introduced, as I understand it, into both measures. I would remind my right hon. Friend of the conditions under which these Grants are to be made. He seems to have forgotten what is contained in Sections 14 and 15 of this Bill. He seems to have forgotten that the assistance which is given by the local authority to these societies, must be subject to any regulations or conditions which are imposed by the Board, and that the assistance given under Secton 15—that is to say, direct, and not by way of or through the local authority—again is to be given under such conditions as are approved by the Local Government Board. Accordingly, all this money which is to be contributed is to be contributed under conditions imposed upon these societies by the central authority. That, I think, to a large extent meets the point which my right hon. Friend put. He spoke about private enterprise. I really do not think that these societies are a very happy illustration of private enterprise.

Mr. ADAMSON: May I intervene? The Resolution says:
(c) in contributing to costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts 'and other persons.'

Mr. MUNRO: Let us deal with one thing at a time. The words "other persons" is a phrase introduced into both Resolutions to cover any contingencies which might arise in the course of the progress of the Bill through Committee. I think the Government would have been short-sighted if they had omitted these words.

Sir G. YOUNGER: The Government were obliged to put it in this way as a whole so that it could be amended in Committee, if so desired.

Mr. MUNRO: The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly seems to read into these words a sinister determination of which they are really not capable.

Mr. ADAMSON: If I may intervene again I would like to remind the right
hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland as to the position of these words in the English Bill.

Mr. MUNRO: I have no information of what has taken place in Committee to-day. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be thoroughly alive to the necessities of the situation if and when a similar proposal is made in Committee in regard to Scotland. But one has to remember the type of society with which one is dealing. These public utility societies are really not societies which are trading for profit. They are restricted under the Act under which they operate nowadays to a return of 6 per cent. upon their capital—it used to be 5 per cent. Surely my right hon. Friend does not for a moment assimilate the position of a society of this kind to that of the speculative builder. The analogy is not quite fair or reasonable

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to be quite clear on this point in relation to this 30 per cent. grant from the Government. Is that part of the capital of the public utility societies on which the 6 per cent. will be paid?

Mr. MUNRO: I would not like to argue that point now with my hon. Friend, but if he will put down a question I will endeavour to give an answer. I am scarcely prepared to answer a question of that nature without having considered all the circumstances. I think I have said all I need say in regard to the divided attack made from the Front Opposition Bench. My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, renew it in Committee. His warning leaves me cold. I am ready to meet him in Committee, which will be a more appropriate place to raise these points. In reply to several questions put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, he asked me first of all as to the number of houses which it was anticipated would be erected in Scotland in the course of the first financial year. The, estimate is 13,000. That appears, I think, on the front page of the White Paper, and that is according to the advice I sought and obtained before this Financial Resolution was discussed. Secondly, I have been asked whether or not the sum of £50,000 is not an underestimate. It was suggested that it might not unreasonably be a larger sum if we looked at the matter from a more courageous point of view. I imagine what is meant is—

Sir D. MACLEAN: The number of houses.

Mr. MUNRO: And, therefore, a more courageous programme. The sum follows exactly the proportion of the English estimate, which is £400,000. That is the Scottish quota provided on the same basis as the English estimate. Apart from that I would remind hon. Members of another consideration, which is that the financial year in Scotland is a shorter and a different year to the financial year in England, being from 15th May to 15th May. Accordingly we budget for the half year ending 11th November. The period during which we shall be erecting houses in Scotland will be shorter than the period allowed in England. When the right hon. Gentleman bears that in mind, I think he will be disposed to agree that we are embarking upon a more courageous programme than the English programme. On the question of water supply which he raised, I content myself at this stage by saying that I fully appreciate the importance of that question. It shall have anxious and full consideration before the question, is raised in Committee upstairs.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ACQUISITION OF LAND.

ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION— [SALARIES.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th May.]

That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of salaries or remuneration to official valuers appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law as to the Assessment of Compensation in respect of land acquired compulsorily for public purposes and the costs in proceedings thereon.'

Question again proposed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman desires to finish the remarks he was making when I intervened last night?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The Resolution under consideration is very limited in its scope. It will be within the recollec-
tion of the House that the Bill for land acquisition made provision for the establishment of a panel of official valuers. It is further provided "That a member of this panel while holding office shall not himself engage or be a partner of any other person who engages in private practice or business as an estate or land agent, surveyor or valuer. In the third place it is provided that there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to official valuers such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine."
The Financial Resolution now before the House deals with the salaries which in pursuance of that Clause are to be paid to the official valuers, and the number of official valuers to be appointed. The White Paper shows that the number of official valuers required for the purposes of this Bill is eight—five for England and Wales, two for Scotland, and one for Ireland. The salary of the official valuer shall be a sum not exceeding £3,000. The total sum, therefore, required in salaries is a sum not exceeding £24,000 a year. When this question was touched on the Second Reading of the Bill there was a conflict of opinion as to whether the official valuers to be appointed under the Bill were to be whole-time or part-time officials. Although there was a division of opinion on that, there was no division of opinion as to the importance adequately of paying the valuers. The hon. and learned Gentleman for the Exchange Division was of opinion that the official valuers ought not to be debarred from private practice, but he was so strongly of opinion that they should be well paid. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for the Horn castle Division was in favour of full-time appointments, and was also strongly of opinion that the men should be properly remunerated. I hope the House will feel that the proposed remuneration is not inappropriate. We feel that it is very important that the Government should employ the men in question, and also important that the official valuer under this Bill should consider himself to be engaged in discharging work of great difficulty and requiring great experience. With that explanation I hope the Committee will see fit to pass this Financial Resolution.

Sir D. MACLEAN rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has already spoken on this Motion.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order; but I would rather not raise that point of Order, if by leave of the House I may speak again. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] The question which my right hon. Friend has raised in this Resolution is one of considerable importance. I am afraid, owing to some conversation near me, I rather missed the point of some of his remarks, and as to whether the intention is to make whole or part-time appointments—

Mr. FISHER: Whole-time officers.

Sir D. MACLEAN: —rather than part-time officers. I only, however, wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this: that I object altogether to the system of valuation of which this Financial Resolution is a necessary part. I am not going into that, however—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are here only dealing with matters covered by the Financial Resolution.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was only going to point out that there is another scheme which, I think, would be in order, although, perhaps, the proper place to deal with it is before the Committee upstairs. I think, by utilising the existing authorities of the Inland Revenue, we might avoid a very large amount of expense which it is proposed to incur under the Resolution which is now submitted to the House. I wish to safeguard the position upstairs by making that statement on this purely Financial Resolution on the ground of economy.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

Question proposed [12th May],

That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to control the importation of goods infected or likely to be infected with anthrax, and to provide for the disinfection of any such goods."—[Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood.]

Amendment proposed,
Provided that such payment in any one year shall not exceed twenty-five thousand pounds."—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]

Question again proposed,
That those words be there added.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): This Order should have been put down to-morrow, and not to-night, because the White Paper which I promised has not yet been placed in the Vote Office. For this reason I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED MEN [FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT—MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I beg to move,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any sums payable in respect of any arrangements made under any Act of the present Session to enable arrangements to be made as to employers' liability to pay compensation in respect of men disabled by service in His Majesty's Forces during the present War with a view to facilitating their employment.
This Motion is to enable the Home Office to facilitate the employment of disabled soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and with the permission of the Committee I will go over one or two of the essential points, because I feel that there will be no opposition in principle, and I hope the memorandum of explanation now circulated gives adequate information of these items, although we have never in our history had a similar case of indemnifying the employer against any expenses he may be put to under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Nearly all the men who have been injured are insured in certain insurance companies, and these companies have very patriotically said that they would make no claim, whatever the loss might be, from employing disabled men until the year 1928.
One reason for postponing any possible claim until that time is that it may turn out that the country will not be put to any expense whatever in compensating employers or insurance companies who employed disabled men. I am instructed that in any event the annual charge could not be more than £50,000, and that would be a temporary and declining charge because every year the number of disabled men eligible for employment in industrial concerns would be of a declining nature.
Many employers have apprehensions as to how great the loss would be under their insurance arrangements if they employed disabled men, and I think that the Committee will agree that the quicker you pass this measure the better effect it will have among those employers who have such apprehensions, and the greater will be the inducement to employ these gallant men, and at the same time it will call the attention of the disabled men to the fact that they are not risking the lives of their fellow employés, or increasing the cost to them, and they will not suffer any detriment by taking employment. I hope the House will pass this Motion so that I can proceed with the passage of the measure into law.

Mr. HOGGE: I am certain the House will grant the Motion made by my hon. and gallant Friend without any hesitation. I only wish to say one or two things about it. The first is, obviously, that employers have been reluctant about employing disabled men because of the risk attached to compensation. It is a fact that out of the millions of unemployed people to-day nearly one-third of that number are discharged men, and that is a serious situation, so far as the country is concerned, after the promises and pledges given in this House.
My only other point is that I think the Government have a right to expect more generosity from the large insurance companies, because they have undoubtedly made exceptional profits in many instances as a result of the War. Many policies have lapsed, and the profit has fallen into the insurance companies. Therefore, I should have thought that the companies would have borne what the Government now suggest should be borne by the State, and I think there might have been that amount of generosity shown. In any event if these figures are approximately true, it is a very small contribution for making it possible for these men to be employed. Those of us who have read the Accountant-General's Reports on the waste of money by the Government and all of us during the War will certainly not grudge a small sum of this kind.

Captain A. SMITH: It is a great pity that the insurance companies who take risks of this character should come to Parliament to cover any loss. It is well known in the slightest degree but has rather
gained by the War. In some cases the trade itself provides its own insurance at much lower premiums than those of the insurance companies, and surely, if the insurance companies think that they may not lose till 1928, the risk is not so great that they and the employers could not cover any slight deficiency without coming to Parliament. I quite agree that the Under-Secretary and the Government are prompted by beneficent motives in removing any obstacle in the way of disabled men getting employment, but the obstacle is not so great that the insurance companies and the employers could not have obviated it and given the men a fair chance without appealing to Parliament to cover any loss. After the services that these men have rendered to the country, I feel that it is a little bit mean of these companies and the employers to come to Parliament and ask us to pass this Resolution. Of course, this ought to be done for these disabled men, and, if it cannot be provided for them in any other way, then Parliament must do it. If the money is obtained from the Government, the employers will have to keep two sets of accounts, one set for men who have never served and another set for men who have served in the War, and many things may arise out of that fact. I repeat that I think it is mean of the insurance companies and the employers not to face this matter without coming to Parliament to provide money in order to enable disabled men to work on the same level with men who have escaped disablement altogether.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Let me clear up a misconception that has arisen in the Debate. The insurance companies and the employers have not asked Parliament to do this. A Committee was appointed by the House to inquire into the whole question, and two Members of the House were upon that Committee.

Captain SMITH: At whose instigation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not sure who moved it, but a Committee was appointed, and it drew up a unanimous Report, putting forward the scheme that I have very briefly given to the House. I do not want anyone to go away with the idea that the insurance companies and the employers are asking the House for anything. This is a necessary preliminary to the Bill which the Government have based on the recommendations of the Committee set up by the House of Commons.

Captain SMITH: Who instigated this Departmental Committee. How was the Committee formed? What prompted the Home Office to appoint it? The insurance companies?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No; it was a Committee appointed in accordance with a common desire felt in the last House, and in this that inquiry should be made into the position of these disabled men who are not only now seeking employment, but who have sought employment from the time that the first casualty was convalescent after his return from France. All employers do not insure in insurance companies. You have mutual indemnity societies, especially in the collieries, and a large number of firms carry on their own insurance. It is not therefore practicable to have one common system applicable to the whole country. We believe, and our belief is based upon the Report of the Committee, that if loss arises from the employment of these disabled men it is the duty of the State, whom these men served, to bear that loss. In my opinion, the loss will be very small, but the encouragement to employers and employés alike will be very great. The amount involved is small, but the principle is all important, and I hope that the Committee will give me the Resolution without further delay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto,
It fell to my lot some time ago to announce that there will be no more Votes of Credit, and I am very pleased to tell the Committee that this is the fifth and last War Obligations Bill which will be founded upon the Financial Resolution that I am presenting to the Committee to-night. During the War there have been already four Bills of the nature which the
Government propose to introduce, serving the purpose described in the Financial Resolution, and undertaking to give effect to obligations which have been entered into for purposes connected with the War. When the Bill itself is introduced, it will be found that it consists, exactly as the previous Bills consisted, of a Clause bringing up-to-date the past unexpired obligations and introducing two new obligations which have been created since the last Bill received the Royal Assent on 8th August last. I wish to remind the Committee what the War Obligations Bill does not do. There is no power at all to enter into any fresh obligations. The War Obligations Bill only ratifies obligations which have already been entered into and which were incurred for the purposes of the War. Secondly, this is the last Bill, and all the Departments have been duly notified that no further obligations of a similar kind can be incurred and any Department which may desire to enter into such obligations will have to be dealt with in the usual way by being submitted to Parliament. The third is that there is no power in the Bill to avoid asking Parliament for whatever money may be required when the occasion arises—that is to say, if and when an obligation matures it has to come before Parliament in the shape of an Estimate.
I may now mention the two new obligations, neither of which are strangers to the Committee. The first obligation is that for the search for petroleum in this country. The total amount is £1,000,000. The agreement connected with the search for petroleum in this country was submitted to Parliament before the end of last Session and whatever money may be required for the purpose during this financial year will be submitted in the Estimate of the Ministry of Munitions. The second item is the third guarantee, amounting to £200,000, in aid of flax production. If my memory serves me, that mainly applies to Ireland. Flax production had become a matter of most vital concern towards the end of the War, when the demand for aeroplane manufacture was so great that it had become, for various reasons I need not go into on this occasion, very difficult to get any of the raw material abroad. This amount of £200,000 I am in great hopes may never have to be found, but if it, or any part of the sum, has to be found, it will be duly presented to the House on the Board of Trade Vote. I think that at this stage this is all I can usefully say, because it is all that directly concerns
the Financial Resolution I am now moving. We cannot have the Bill printed and circulated until the Financial Resolution has been passed by this Committee. I propose, with the permission, of the House, as I did on the occasion of the last War Obligations Bill, in July last, to make a full statement of every outstanding obligation on the Second Reading of the Bill itself.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for the statement he has made. I want to ask one question, and that is whether the Bill, when drawn, will be so drawn—as the Leader of the House intimated on the last occasion—as to allow a full debate on the question of Government expenditure. My hon. Friend will remember that was one of the undertakings which the Leader of the House gave, and the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the debate which took place. This Resolution, as my hon. Friend has said, is necessary before the Bill can be introduced. It is a purely finance Bill, which cannot be introduced until the Resolution has been passed in Committee of Ways and Means or in this Committee. It cannot even be treated and read the first time until that has been done. Of course, it is an absolutely necessary process in this kind of Bill. One might be led into a general discussion on this Financial Resolution with regard to such revelations as have appeared in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but I am happy to spare the Committee such a discussion as that, because we have arranged through the usual channels that next week we shall have a day on which to discuss the Auditor-General's Report, which is exciting, and naturally so, considerable public interest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, IRELAND [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the Housing of the Work-
ing Classes and the Acquisition of Small Dwellings in Ireland—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Orders of the Day — MUSEUMS AND PUBLIC GALLERIES.

OCCUPATION BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now Adjourn."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I propose to take up the time of the House for a very few moments with a question which I desire to bring to the attention of the First Commissioner of Works—the question of the continued occupation of museums and public galleries by staffs of Government offices and also the continued occupation of the open space in Burton Court by the temporary buildings of the staff of Ministry of Pensions. I should not have brought this matter up were I not convinced that in the very considerable time that has elapsed since it was last discussed much more might have been done than has been done. I am fully aware that every Government office must find it extremely difficult to provide accommodation for its staff and I realise that the First Commissioner of Works must be at his wits ends to get accommodation to replace that which has been used during the War at museums and public galleries and in the open space at Burton Court. As far as I can make out the museums and galleries are just as full to-day of the staffs of Government offices as they were in the month of November, and that being so, I think it is the duty of the House to draw public attention to this state of affairs and to press the Commissioner of Works to give some definite date by which the museums and public galleries in London will be entirely evacuated. As far as I can make out there has been very little improvement made in the matter of evacuation since last November. A debate took place in another place on this subject in the month of February. Comparing the figures then quoted with the figures given me by the First Commissioner of Works during this week, I cannot discover that any material change has been made in this state of affairs. I find that in the National Gallery there are still more than 650 clerks of the Ministry of Munitions; in the National Portrait Gallery there are 377 clerks of the War Office; in the
National Gallery of British Art there are 824 members of the staff of the Ministry of Pensions; in the British Museum there are 292 members of the staff of the Registrar of Friendly Societies; in the New Science Museum there are 1,500 clerks of the Post Office; in the Imperial Institute and Science Museum there are 1,440 members of the staff of the War Office; in Hertford House there are 460 clerks of the Ministry of Munitions, and in the London Museum there are eighty-three members of various other Government Departments. From those numbers, compared with the numbers which were quoted in another place in the month of February, it will be seen that there has been little, if any, improvement during the last few months in the evacuation by Government officials and Government staffs of public galleries and museums in London.
All hon. Members will agree that this is a very unfortunate state of affairs from many points of view. Particularly at the present moment, when I suppose that there never have been so many citizens of the Dominions beyond the seas and foreigners gathered together in London. I know from what people directly connected with the galleries and museums in London have said to me that crowds, particularly of overseas troops, have been clamouring for admission into public museums, such as the National Gallery and the British Museum and have very much regretted and resented the fact that those buildings are still filled with the staffs of Government offices, and that they have had no opportunity—possibly it is the only opportunity of their lives—of seeing the art treasures of London. Secondly, the continuous occupation by Government officials of these galleries and museums must have a bad effect upon the treasures of art they contain. Many of those treasures have been stored in all kinds of places during the War—stored, I acknowledge, with great care, but at the same time in places much less suitable, to put it at the very lowest, for their storage than the rooms of a museum. I understand that some of our greatest treasures have been kept in a section of one of the Tubes of London. I cannot help feeling very great anxiety in that matter, because to keep these treasures for a long period in such places as that cannot but have a bad effect upon them. From that point of view also, therefore, I desire to see
these Government staffs got out of the museums and galleries at the very earliest opportunity.
There is a third reason. Several of these museums and galleries in London are used for a great deal of educational and scientific work. Much of that work is now being held up. For instance, at the British Museum I understand that a great deal of storage accommodation is taken up by the storage of prisoners' effects from German East Africa, and also by records of the Medical Research Department. As a result of that, much of the scientific work of the museum is being greatly impeded through want of space. New inroads have been frequently made upon the space of the museum during the last two or three months, with the result that the scientific work of the museum is greatly impeded. That state of affairs is not improving. So far as I understand, not a single official has been evacuated from the British Museum, although pledges have been given from time to time that this evacuation would take place. The officials of the Medical Research Department and the other Department are still in the British Museum. They tend to demand more rather than less accommodation. The storage accommodation at the British Museum is taken up by the prisoners' effects to which I have just alluded, with the result that it is proving extremely difficult to carry on the scientific work which is carried on by the staff of the British Museum. I hope that when the First Commissioner of Works comes to reply he will be able to tell the House that there is a definite date upon which these museums and galleries have got to be evacuated. The original arrangement made, I believe, by Lord Harcourt with the authorities at the time was that the museums and galleries would be in their pre-war state, ready for the public, with their exhibits ready to be seen, within, in some cases, three, and in other cases six, months after the end of hostilities.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): After the declaration of peace.

Sir S. HOARE: Be that as it may, I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will be able to state definitely the date on which these public buildings will be finally evacuated. Let me make him a humble suggestion. The figures I have just read to the House show that practically every one of the museums and
galleries has a large number of Government officials in it. Even if he cannot evacuate them all at once, he might evacuate one or two of the more important by concentrating into the others the staffs that now fill up the more important ones. For instance, it is a matter of great urgency that the British Museum and the National Gallery—possibly also the Science Museum—should be evacuated at once. I would suggest to him that he should get the Government clerks out of these two or three museums, which stand by themselves in London, and he should do that at once by concentrating those staffs into the other museums and galleries which are not used or are not in such great request as the National Gallery and the British Museum. That is all I have to say about the museums and galleries.
I want also to mention another instance of the same kind which seems to fail within the scope of what I am bringing to the right hon. Gentleman's attention—that is the case of Burton Court. Burton Court, and the building which was formerly known as the Duke of York's School and is now known as the Duke of York's Headquarters, are two of the most attractive and most needed open spaces in the South-West district of London. I am quite aware that in the legal sense of the word they are not open spaces, but as unbuilt-over sites they are of great value to the neighbourhood. As to Burton Court, that forms a part of what is one of the best examples of town planning in the whole of London. It forms an integral part of Sir Christopher Wren's scheme, with the Royal Avenue, then the open space of Burton Court, and then Chelsea Hospital. From both points of view: first of all, from the point of view of the open space, and, secondly, from the point of view of the great artistic loss that its present occupation makes, I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to evacuate Burton Court at the very earliest possible opportunity. I have put questions to him during the Session, and the answer he has given is that no one wishes to impede the work of the Ministry of Pensions and that it is extremely difficult to find accommodation for the staff of the Ministry elsewhere. I realise that difficulty, but I still believe that it would be possible for him, if he looked about, to find accommodation for this staff, say, in one of the suburbs of London, to which, I believe, he and other members of the Government are looking
more and more for Government accommodation. At the present moment it is a very grave loss, not only to the neighbourhood, but to the whole of London, that Burton Court should be practically covered with buildings, which, although he describes them as temporary, yet have the look as if they were going to remain there for a great number of years. It is a great loss to London from the artistic point of view, and it is also a great loss to the neighbourhood from the point of view of the open space. Let me give him one single result. The children of Chelsea at one time used Burton Court as their playground. It then came about that Burton Court was used as a cricket ground for certain of the regiments of the London district. The children, therefore, were given the use of the grounds of Chelsea Hospital. I understand it is now the idea to use the grounds of Chelsea Hospital as a cricket ground, and there is a great risk of the children in this neighbourhood losing their open space. If the children do not lose it as a playground, the cricketers will lose it as a cricket ground, and in either case it is very regrettable. I quite agree that if I believed that the buildings have been built for a very temporary war emergency, I would not worry the right hon. Gentleman, but when I look at those buildings, which day after day and week after week increase in extent, and certainly have the look, as I have said, of being put up for a considerable number of years, I feel that I must complain as strongly as I can to the First Commissioner of Works, and that I must ask him definitely to say what he understands by temporary, and when he hopes that these buildings can be removed. I see no reason whatever why he should not find accommodation for this staff somewhere else, and in any case a site like this, which is a historic site, which is considered of great value not only by residents in Chelsea, but by people in London generally—a fact which was shown in the influentially-signed letter to "The Times" from people representative of English public life of all sections two or three months ago—I think we have a right to demand that this open space should be evacuated without further delay.

9.0. P.M.

Sir H. CRAIK: I think the House is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this question, which is of vital importance, and I am glad, as a Member for the Scottish Universities, to add my word
to those which have fallen from my hon. Friend. When the proposal was first made in the great agony of the War that these museums should be absorbed for these public purposes, there was a good deal of opposition, but I did not, even although a University Member, feel myself justified in refusing the proposal of the Government in that emergency. We always, however, thought that it was temporary, and it has not turned but to be so. Now, when we are about beginning the great struggle of peace and reconstruction, when we need all the resources of education and industrial reconstruction that are open to us, what can be more foolish and more blind than, for temporary purposes which are prolonged, as I assert, by carelessness and indifference on the part of those who are in charge of these offices, to prevent the use of these great institutions upon which lavish sums of money have been spent, and which will be of crucial importance to the young who are rising up now in the new generation? My hon. Friend has given an elaborate catalogue of all the museums taken over. The British Museum itself is a loss to our Colonial brothers at this moment which can never be made up to them in their lives again. The Science Museum again is practically useless at a time when we are all speaking about the necessity of reconstructing our industrial life. I am not disposed to put undue blame upon my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I believe he is hard pressed, but I think he ought to know that he would have the encouragement of this House if he took his courage in his hands and faced those overgrown staffs and those who are responsible for them. I am perfectly certain, as an old Civil servant myself, that there is nothing that hinders work so much as an inflated staff, and I am certain also that many of those who are now in these Government offices, who are there, and who intend to stay there until they are turned out, and who will always find excuses for staying there, are hindering each other and tumbling over each other and getting in each other's way. I appeal to my fellow Members in the House who have had to go to some of these offices. Is it not their experience that it is not the plurality of officials, it is the absolute multiplicity of officials through whom, each separate letter has to go, through the number of clerks who are crowding each other out, that is the evil? I am certain if the right
hon. Gentleman firmly said, "These offices are no longer at your disposal, and at a certain date I shall turn you out and lock the door and put them to their proper use," he would find he had not only the support of this House unanimously, but the support of an enormous body of feeling outside the House, and I am certain that the universities and all the educational interests throughout the country would thank him from the bottom of their soul and that he would find that he had greatly improved his position in the country. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has shown that courage which I would have liked to have seen him show. I have no doubt he has a good heart and good intentions and that he is eager to deal with this matter, but he has not tackled it as promptly as he might have done. It is not only the British Museum that is concerned. Every citizen of London is suffering in some way or other. Why is it that these ugly buildings are left standing absolutely unoccupied and unused in the middle of Hyde Park when the citizens of London want to use the park I have asked several questions about Kensington Gardens, and the right hon. Gentleman in April, and again in May, said that the matter is receiving attention. I see these buildings every day, and I am certain that they are serving no useful public purpose. If he would say to the War Office, "You must take down these buildings, or I will take them down. You must turn out of these offices," I am certain that no good public object would suffer in any way, and these beautiful gardens, which are now at their best, if they were free from these ugly eyesores, would be open for the use of the public. I would tell the House what happened to me on the Public Accounts Committee. One of the officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department was under examination. I was questioning him about the price of the buildings erected in St. James's Park. Certainly they have been very costly buildings, and I asked how long he supposed they would stand, and he answered, "Probably for ten years." Are we to be deprived of the use of St. James's Park for ten years because these buildings are being occupied? I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman will weigh the loss to the nation which is caused by the occupation of the museums, upon which we have spent so much, and of which we are so proud, and which we insist upon being used as necessary adjuncts to the educa-
tional machinery of the country; and if he will consider all the injury and discomfort inflicted upon this great city by the occupation of its open spaces merely, perhaps, because of the idleness and dilatoriness of some War Office clerk, who will not give the necessary order to evacuate the buildings and leave the ground free; if he will only weigh these considerations, conscious of the support that there is behind him, both in this House and in the country, he would use drastic measures. He is the master of the situation. He can tell these people, "There are public buildings, intended for certain purpose, and you must evacuate them." If he gave a fair warning, say for two or three weeks, that he would turn them out and lock the doors, I am confident that very little impediment would be placed in the way of the quick and speedy transaction of public business, while immense benefit would be gained for the nation, and the right hon. Gentleman himself would earn gratitude from every class of the community.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I only want to ask one or two questions. I quite understand these museums being occupied for emergency War Departments, but that is not the case. In at least three instances the accommodation is taken up by officers of Departments who must have their own habitations waiting for them elsewhere, unless the Office of Works have made no provision before the War. There is one very large body of 1,500 officers of the Post Office Savings Bank occupying the New Science Museum. Where did these officials come from, and what has happened to the premises which they previously occupied?

Sir A. MOND: They are dealing with War Bonds.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Why should the Medical Research Committee want new accommodation, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies? Were they turned out of their own buildings?

Sir A. MOND: Made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: It seems perfectly endless. When you get people at last to leave these museums—as in the case of the Wallace collection, which was vacated by the Naval Intelligence Department, some of the new
mushroom Ministries spring up. Now it is occupied by the Ministry of Munitions. If we could have some term put on this kind of thing, it would be a great relief.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member spoke of the dilatoriness. I have been contending with that for two years. He says the task is endless. In a way, so it is. It is like the Stone of Sisyphus, which one is trying to roll up the hill, but it rolls down again. As fast as you demobilise one Department not only does this House sanction a new Department, but another Department expands. That has been one of the great difficulties in dealing with accommodation. Everybody anticipated, and I anticipated, that we should have had a very large reduction of staffs, but, on the whole, the total number of staffs of the different Departments has very little diminished. When we began to demobilise the Army, immediately a huge staff sprang up at the Ministry of Labour to carry out demobilisation. The Pensions staff has been growing. Since the Armistice the staff of the Pensions Department has increased by 5,000, and I have a new demand for two or three thousand more. These facts will give some idea of the class of task to be dealt with. I can assure hon. Members that for me, who has a passion for art and a passion for museums, it is a sad position to see these buildings occupied by Government staffs, and it is not for want of endeavour that the position has not been very much improved. There are one or two points which might as well be cleared up. The assumption seems to have crept to the speeches I have heard that the National Gallery is unavailable for public use. That is not a fact. Well, over half of the National Gallery is filled with most beautiful pictures, and if the military who are over here will study the beautiful pictures on exhibition they will carry away very pleasant recollections. Take the British Museum.

Sir S. HOARE: In regard to the British Museum, I would like to say that three of the most popular departments—the Prints Department, the Assyrian Department, and the Egyptian Department—are in the possession of Government Departments.

Sir A. MOND: I do not think the hon. Member will find the Assyrian and Egyptian Departments popular as we call a thing popular. I have visited them often before the War and I have scarcely ever found anybody there. Those are only
small portions of the museum. Anybody could spend many years studying other parts of the museum. I have been endeavouring to see how I could free the British Museum as soon as possible. I do not want the impression to go that these museums are closed. There is some misunderstanding about the Science Museum. It is not yet built, and it will take several years to complete it. There is no question in this building of taking anything from the public. On the more general question I may say that there is great difficulty in dealing with the question of accommodation from the sectional point of view. One day I am told that I am holding up all the beds in London and that the hotels must be free. The next day I am told that the parks must be evacuated. Next, I am told that business premises must be immediately released. Now I am told that museums and art galleries are the most important. We have at present 57,000 clerks on 3,000,000 square feet of requisitioned premises. When the Armistice occurred I at once considered what would be the best method of dealing with the situation in reference to the buildings that have been taken. I recommended to the Cabinet that we should give priority of release to the hotels, because I think that the House will agree that on the whole these are the most important, that the galleries and museums should come next, and then the public institutions. So we have been working on a system. The hon. Member who raised the subject referred to the reduction of numbers of staff. So far as premises are concerned, there is no object in merely reducing the number. Suppose that we have 657 of a staff at the National Gallery to-day, there is nothing to be gained by taking away 200 and leaving 457. If you want to evacuate the Gallery you must either get the whole 657 abolished or transferred to some other building.
On the question of staffs, I had no control over their numbers. If I told Ministers that in a week or fortnight they were not to have the buildings which they at present have, they would say, "Where are we to go? We have to carry on the liquidation of hundreds of millions of pounds of public accounts." You cannot turn staffs like that into the street. You cannot disorganise the whole of this work over the country. You must be able to transfer them en bloc to some place where they can continue their work. For
instance, the staff in one of the premises which have been referred to owes its direct existence to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Expenditure, recommending that a special account staff should be appointed to deal with accounts for the Ministry of Munitions, and at the moment no other place was available. I believe that that staff has saved the country millions of pounds already. You must deal with the question on a general basis. I have been, endeavouring to achieve two joint results. One is to decentralise staffs and induce Departments to move further out of London. That was no easy thing to do. Every one of the Ministers in charge of the Department assured me that there were important people somewhere near their Departments, with whom they were obliged to have continual transaction. It is impossible for me to judge what basis there is in this. I have naturally to accept the view of responsible Ministers on that subject, but I am inducing Ministers now, I think, to take a wider view of this important question.
The hon. Member referred to the fact that we are proceeding with the erection of hutments at Acton for the Ministry of Pensions. When those hutments are available I hope that one of the first things to be done will be to take the Pensions Staff out of the Tate Gallery. I do not want to disappoint the House, but that is certainly a question of months. After various consultations between myself and Lord Inverforth, who is very self-assertive, we are endeavouring to concentrate the staff which are in various museums, and I hope that a very great change will come in the next two or three months. The hon. Member referred to some pledge. I cannot recollect it myself. I have always been most careful not to give any pledge, and I am certain that no pledge was ever given that anything would be done until after the peace or six months after the peace. That probably will be twelve months after now. So there must still be a great deal of time. The hon. Member must remember that we have not yet got peace, and while an immense number have been demobilised there are Departments which may be called upon to recommence the War. There is a staff of some 2,000 belonging to a certain Department which will be demobilised as soon as peace is certain. When that staff goes I shall immediately be able to make arrangements to place
some of the other people in the room which they occupy. The fact that for five months we have had the Peace Conference which has made the question infinitely more difficult for the Departments and for me.
With regard to the Imperial Institute, I have been in personal communication recently with the War Office, and I understand that the Financial Secretary to the War Office thinks that they will be able shortly to move these staffs out of London. There is a staff which deals with the question of the effects of men who have fallen in the War, and those who are in charge of the staff are greatly afraid of disorganisation. All those are temporary things which must wind themselves up, but I hope that something in that direction will be done in a short time. Then I am considering the question of bringing the Board of Education back from the Victoria and Albert Museum. The greater part of that Museum, with all its lovely contents is to-day open to the public. There are enough beautiful things to be seen in the museums in London to-day, and I should be only too glad if everybody went and studied them, quite apart from the question of those which I hope soon to show again. In reference to the British Museum it has been said that scientific work has been seriously impeded by existing arrangements. I will look into this matter immediately. I am glad to be able to reassure hon. Members on one point. The valuable works of art which were hidden away during the War in the tubes and have been taken out again have suffered no damage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) spoke about Kensington Gardens. I certainly was under the impression that the buildings there were being removed.

Sir H. CRAIK: They are not, they are still standing there.

Sir A. MOND: I understood that they would be removed practically immediately.

Sir H. CRAIK: They are still standing there, and they keep the public off the ground.

Sir A. MOND: If I find that nothing is being done I shall certainly take energetic action; as energetic as possible.
As regards the question of Burton Court, that is a much more difficult one. I think
it was mentioned when the scheme for erecting those buildings for the Ministry of Pensions was first put forward, that no undertaking of a definite character could be given as to when the buildings would be removed. It was suggested that they should be vacated one year after the declaration of peace, but that was objected to by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and no such undertaking was given. I refused ever to give any definite undertaking on the matter. I would ask the House to consider that we have spent there over £100,000, and when the buildings are completed we shall have spent £150,000 on the central offices for the Ministry of Pensions. Would either the country or the House of Commons be prepared to ask me to pull down £150,000 worth of temporary buildings, when I should probably have to spend another £200,000 somewhere else in order to house the staff who has to deal with the huge matter of pensions due to the War? In the circumstances, I am not prepared at the present moment to put any such, proposition to the House. When the Ministry of Pensions went there they went on the ground that there was already some pensions staff at Chelsea—Chelsea has always been the classic home of pensions. It is quite true that cricket was played on that ground, but it was not an open space in the sense that the public were admitted to it and children played there, but in the sense that it was not built on. Much as one values the importance of open spaces, it is surely going very far to say that any detriment is caused to the health of Chelsea or London by the buildings on this very small plot. I understand that there are playing-grounds and a new cricket ground in Chelsea Gardens. I cannot for the life of me understand why you cannot play cricket in those gardens. There is a large amount of space there, and the children can play, and I should have thought that they would have liked to have watched the cricket there. This is a very simple matter, and nobody is being deprived of any form of enjoyment whatever. I agree, from an architectural point of view, that if it were suggested that these buildings should be made permanent, I should very strongly oppose it. Of course, from the æsthetic point of view, they do disfigure one of the most beautiful buildings in London; and from the purely architectural point of view, also, I should like to see them removed to-morrow. But in view of the position of the Ministry of
Pensions, and the fact that the whole of the pensions organisation is there, and that the happiness of hundreds and thousands of homes in this country depends on that organisation, I should want a very strong inducement indeed, and I think the House also would want a very strong inducement before they would ask to have those buildings rapidly destroyed. I know the Ministry of Pensions has under consideration schemes which may, in the course of a year or two, enable alterations to be made and decentralisation to take place; while in time of course the pensions will become a diminishing quantity. But I certainly am not prepared to say—just as I was not prepared, when this scheme was first started, to fix any date, and I would never agree to the expenditure of £100,000 of public money on that site if I were compelled to give any date—how long the buildings will remain. I am sure I shall carry the House
with me when I say that a reasonable time ought to be allowed to elapse, that conditions ought to be allowed to stabilise, and that the Ministry of Pensions ought to be allowed to become a much more established Government Department before questions of this kind should be pressed on me, who have to find accommodation for these Government Departments.

Major E. WOOD: What would the right hon. Gentleman interpret as a reasonable time?

Sir A. MOND: It is very difficult to define it in years.

Major WOOD: Years?

Sir A. MOND: Well, it is certainly a question of years

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes before Ten o'clock.